Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That is the exact opposite of what we actually do. It's also professionally insulting. Please stop calling me a fraud. I have no vested interest in preserving or supporting the premise of a common ancestor, and I am currently involved in a project that supports a lamarckian style of evolution. If I could disprove a common ancestor, I'd do it in a heartbeat then sit back and wait for my Nobel prize.

I am not calling you a fraud at all. You are undoubtedly far more advanced than I. My lab experience was not research it was more task oriented (Elisa tests, protein quantitation, splicing, and so on, for those studying disease and making medicines) but likewise I am not ignorant of science or the scientific method as some accuse.

Also I would love to hear more about your project. Is there any where I can access info or would you give a brief description?

My point is that like when in What Makes Biology Unique? (p. 198, Cambridge University Press, 2004), Ernst Mayr says “The earliest fossils of Homo… are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.” All I am saying is we should be honest in separating the two.

Now surely he believes there are reasons for this gap which he probably does not believe exists in reality, but his honesty here is important because this profound evolutionist is admitting that when the actual evidence fails to efficiently support the hypothesis, instead of letting it shape the hypothesis (which is what objectivity and the pursuit of truth in Science demand) we make up a hypothesis based story to explain the discrepancies away. And this is fine only we should not pass it on as if it is established truth beyond a reasonable doubt (because I and others have reasonable doubts).

So I say yes theorize and hypothesize by all means but declare that to be what they are. Separate what we KNOW or can know from what we suppose is the reason.

Finally, no one can prove there is no common ancestor (as that would be trying to prove a negative) but why should we need to when it has not yet been proven. It is accepted yes, but we have no observable facts to base it on. As I said your offspring example IS sound because we can see that something was in fact changed (no supposition required).

I say prove there is one and then you will have your Nobel Prize...as for other lines of evidence feel free to share (even briefly) but now you get me interested in your project...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So how do you interpret the data?

The "opening premise" is confirmed by multiple lines of evidence though, not some wild guess or hypothesis. They aren't trying to support the concept of common descent, it needs no further support to be accepted as fact, they are trying to investigate the specifics of the mechanisms.

Come on Pshun, even I know why this is done I've seen it explained so many times on this forum.

Who doesn't accept them as evidence of difference? They explain the difference.

Come on.

I'm afraid I can't make sense of this Pshun.

I appreciate that you are raising questions over the interpretation of this data rather than necessarily claiming it's wrong or that you know the real answers, in my view I suppose a degree of skepticism is healthy. I really don't mean this as an insult, but I suspect that many of your objections stem from lacking a detailed understanding of the subject.

I'm okay with you maintaining your opinion and I respect it. I do. Sorry you cannot make sense of it, I could not have made it any clearer. There is what we can actually observe, and then there is how we explain it. The latter is where the premise is incorrectly confused with that which we can actually observe as a fact. It's called "a mater of perspective"!

You say common descent is an established fact, and I know you believe that. I, on the other hand, do not say it is not possible, but can clearly see it is NOT an established fact, and tht the premise was believed as seriously as you do now long before any such "lines of evidence" suggested it may be true after all.

I'm not in these discussions to support special creationism even though like Antony Flew, Francis Colliins, and others, I came to believe in God after a life of agnosticism. It was in fact an atheist sociologist, Dr. Walter Mott, that made our class (and all his classes) learn to distinguish what we could and did actually KNOW from what we BELIEVE or were taught was true. It is truly shocking when much of the basis of your world view crumbles into belief with little confirmation. And I am forever indebted to this atheist...but it gets me in a lot of trouble with many people in many groups (even YECs and Calvinists and so on, and I question them as well and just as rigorously) so I am not surprised here or on other forums.

But thanks, your response was very gracious I can see that.
 
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Also I would love to hear more about your project. Is there any where I can access info or would you give a brief description?

If we ever get it past reviewers and published, I will provide a link.

All I am saying is we should be honest in separating the two.

the two what?

Now surely he believes there are reasons for this gap which he probably does not believe exists in reality

I think that is you projecting. There is no reason at all to think he believes that.

but his honesty here is important because this profound evolutionist is admitting that when the actual evidence fails to efficiently support the hypothesis

That's not what he's saying. He's saying there isn't any evidence for this aspect. There is a huge difference between

"the evidence between Australopithecus and Homo is missing"

and

"t
he evidence between Australopithecus and Homo doesn't support the theory."

instead of letting it shape the hypothesis

Lack of evidence cannot shape anything.

So I say yes theorize and hypothesize by all means but declare that to be what they are. Separate what we KNOW or can know from what we suppose is the reason.

Again you use loaded words like "suppose" to suggest it's made up out of think air with out any evidence.

It's just not true.

Finally, no one can prove there is no common ancestor (as that would be trying to prove a negative) but why should we need to when it has not yet been proven.

I really hesitate to go into the latest hypotheses and evidences around the common ancestor, as fascinating as they are, because in the other thread you denied that bass are more closely related to humans than sharks. If you wont accept that, further discussion on a CA is pointless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I'm okay with you maintaining your opinion and I respect it. I do. Sorry you cannot make sense of it, I could not have made it any clearer. There is what we can actually observe, and then there is how we explain it. The latter is where the premise is incorrectly confused with that which we can actually observe as a fact. It's called "a mater of perspective"!

You say common descent is an established fact, and I know you believe that. I, on the other hand, do not say it is not possible, but can clearly see it is NOT an established fact, and tht the premise was believed as seriously as you do now long before any such "lines of evidence" suggested it may be true after all.

I'm not in these discussions to support special creationism even though like Antony Flew, Francis Colliins, and others, I came to believe in God after a life of agnosticism. It was in fact an atheist sociologist, Dr. Walter Mott, that made our class (and all his classes) learn to distinguish what we could and did actually KNOW from what we BELIEVE or were taught was true. It is truly shocking when much of the basis of your world view crumbles into belief with little confirmation. And I am forever indebted to this atheist...but it gets me in a lot of trouble with many people in many groups (even YECs and Calvinists and so on, and I question them as well and just as rigorously) so I am not surprised here or on other forums.

But thanks, your response was very gracious I can see that.

In that case I think well have to agree to disgree on this one. I'll admit it is difficult if not almost impossible to change one's entrenched views on such matters (I'm referring to myself here) but at least these conversations expose us to differing opinions.

At least you're not a YEC, there's hope for you yet! :amen:
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In that case I think well have to agree to disgree on this one. I'll admit it is difficult if not almost impossible to change one's entrenched views on such matters (I'm referring to myself here) but at least these conversations expose us to differing opinions.

At least you're not a YEC, there's hope for you yet! :amen:

Thanks my friend and back atcha!!!!
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If we ever get it past reviewers and published, I will provide a link.

the two what?

I think that is you projecting. There is no reason at all to think he believes that.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying there isn't any evidence for this aspect. There is a huge difference between

"the evidence between Australopithecus and Homo is missing"

and

"t
he evidence between Australopithecus and Homo doesn't support the theory."

Lack of evidence cannot shape anything.

Again you use loaded words like "suppose" to suggest it's made up out of think air with out any evidence.

It's just not true.

I really hesitate to go into the latest hypotheses and evidences around the common ancestor, as fascinating as they are, because in the other thread you denied that bass are more closely related to humans than sharks. If you wont accept that, further discussion on a CA is pointless.

Actually it can also be said, from a genetic point of view, that Sharks are closer to humans than they are to Bass...and IF there is Mayr's gap, THEN there are no "observable" facts. No observable fact makes the cross over, thus filling in the gap with hypothesis IS supposition (look it up it does not suggest it is made up out of thin air it is conjecture). So the evidence that there is no evidence should shape the hypothesis that it is not an established fact (teach it as one possibility), and all I am saying is that it should not be presented as established to students OR to the general public.

As for "the two what?" Apparently you are commenting without having read what I wrote.

The actual data (1) and the narrative we attach (2)!

Now I agree that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence but it does mean until there is sufficient evidence we are just filling in the gaps (which is fine but if we are being objective then they must be presented as only that)
 
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You are losing me again.

For the record I am withdrawing my shark/bass comment, I did some more reading and it appears there is some evidence that rather than being an early offshoot with a cartilage skeleton, and other creatures developing bones, that the cartilage actually arose from a boney ancestor, which would put sharks and bass more closely related.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
My point is that like when in What Makes Biology Unique? (p. 198, Cambridge University Press, 2004), Ernst Mayr says “The earliest fossils of Homo… are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.” All I am saying is we should be honest in separating the two.

Now surely he believes there are reasons for this gap which he probably does not believe exists in reality, but his honesty here is important because this profound evolutionist is admitting that when the actual evidence fails to efficiently support the hypothesis, instead of letting it shape the hypothesis (which is what objectivity and the pursuit of truth in Science demand) we make up a hypothesis based story to explain the discrepancies away. And this is fine only we should not pass it on as if it is established truth beyond a reasonable doubt (because I and others have reasonable doubts).

So I say yes theorize and hypothesize by all means but declare that to be what they are. Separate what we KNOW or can know from what we suppose is the reason.

Finally, no one can prove there is no common ancestor (as that would be trying to prove a negative) but why should we need to when it has not yet been proven. It is accepted yes, but we have no observable facts to base it on. As I said your offspring example IS sound because we can see that something was in fact changed (no supposition required).

I say prove there is one and then you will have your Nobel Prize...as for other lines of evidence feel free to share (even briefly) but now you get me interested in your project...

I'm by no means an expert here; my undergrad is in biology, but didn't really have any classes that took a deep dive into the human transitional series. What, in your mind, are the transitions between, let's say Homo habilis and Australopithecus africanus that need to be explained? Looking at the fossils, I would not be able to readily distinguish between them without some research. Likewise for habilis to erectus. Likewise for erectus to neanderthal. I think I could reasonably reliably distinguish neanderthal from sapiens though. That's largely from happening to know a reasonably easily spottable tell.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Dear Serious,

In What Makes Biology Unique? (p. 198, Cambridge University Press, 2004), Ernst Mayr revealed to us that “The earliest fossils of Homo… are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.

In other words a made up story to make the evidence fit the hypothesis!!! Now surely he believes there are reasons for this gap which he probably does not believe exists in reality (for he readily accepts the Ancestor of the gaps argument) but his honesty here is important because this profound evolutionist is admitting that when the actual evidence fails to support the hypothesis, instead of letting it shape the hypothesis (which is what objectivity and the pursuit of truth in Science demand) they make up a hypothesis based story to explain it away. Herein lays the dilemma...

If you are going to become a great scientist then learn to separate the actual facts we find from the hypothesis based narrative attached to explain them..STRIVE with all due diligence to not approach the data or the find with a preconceived notion other wise all you conclude will contain confirmation bias.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Again for Serious...

If you drop what you have been made convinced of via the story and just look at the skulls (void the artisically contrived images and hypothesis based re-constructions and just look)...some are clearly ape and others early human and the two categories in the story are explained to variations of the same creature (NOT).

As for Australophithicus (southern APES) why would it confuse anyone that a variety of ape which changed through speciation to be less aboreal would be less successful and become extinct? This does not even remotely imply they were early human ancestors.

Three things I warn you about:

Just because someone who appears to have authority in some subject does not mean they are right, it does not mean the story accepted is actually true, and it does not mean you are not to question or see other possible explanations.

Next, just because a whole bunch pf people tell the same story or believe the same thing does not mean it is right or more correct than others who see it a different way.

Finally beware the error of false casuality, it is am assumption. Just because some thing or event precedes another does not necessitate that the former caused ot has a lineal relationship to the latter.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You seem to have missed my central question.

I'm unable to distinguish along a chain of fossils/skulls effectively bridging Australophithicus to neanderthal, and only happen to know a tell between neanderthal and modern human. What specific features lack transitional forms between Australophithicus and modern humans? I understand that scientists who work in the field may be familiar enough with them to notice subtle differences I miss, but as you say, "Just because someone who appears to have authority in some subject does not mean they are right, it does not mean the story accepted is actually true, and it does not mean you are not to question or see other possible explanations." So rather than asserting some expert's opinion, let's talk about whatever visible features support or contradict that opinion.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You seem to have missed my central question.

I'm unable to distinguish along a chain of fossils/skulls effectively bridging Australophithicus to neanderthal, and only happen to know a tell between neanderthal and modern human. What specific features lack transitional forms between Australophithicus and modern humans? I understand that scientists who work in the field may be familiar enough with them to notice subtle differences I miss, but as you say, "Just because someone who appears to have authority in some subject does not mean they are right, it does not mean the story accepted is actually true, and it does not mean you are not to question or see other possible explanations." So rather than asserting some expert's opinion, let's talk about whatever visible features support or contradict that opinion.

For differences I see the main one is cranial capacity with a sagittal crest but also a distinguishable difference in the mandible in shape, type of canine teeth, they have a simian shelf, larger eye sockets (that restrict eye movement), a large protruding brow ridge (though some modern humans display this). The upper jaw is more u-shaped compared to a more relaxed arch-shaped jaw in humans. Pronounced nasal bone and cheek bones and a protruding chin are also absent in Australo.

Then the hands indicative of knuckle walking and tree climbing and spinal curvature is a big clue, and all apes even australo have a separated big toe or rear thumb that humans do not display.

I for one do not interpret stone tools found near to austrlo finds as indicative that they either made them or used them but indicative of early humans. I think the interpretation that they could make stone tools and use them is ludicrous and with a shred of evidence (it is hypothesis nased interpretation). And I already addressed the issue of their limited bi-pedalism and how that could have contributed to their extinction.

I hope this helped but if you are referring to alleged “in-between” creatures (Rampithicus, Habalis, Heidelbergensis, Erectus, etc.) then I again missed the point and would ask you to rephrase....
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
For differences I see the main one is cranial capacity
Ok, thanks! Let's take them one at a time. Cranial capacity is a good one as it can be summarized in a single number with a typical range.

Now, modern humans have a cranial capacity ranging about 1000-1500 cc, average around 1300 cc. Neanderthals a bit larger.

Homo heidelbergensis - average 1200 cc
Homo erectus - range 750 to 1225 cc
Homo georgicus - range 600 to 780 cc
Homo habilis - range 500 to 800 cc
Australopithecus afarensis - range 375 to 550 cc

For comparison, modern chimps range from 275 to 500 cc

I'm not seeing a clear gap in that feature.

Which one should we look at next?
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Ok, thanks! Let's take them one at a time. Cranial capacity is a good one as it can be summarized in a single number with a typical range.

Now, modern humans have a cranial capacity ranging about 1000-1500 cc, average around 1300 cc. Neanderthals a bit larger.

Homo heidelbergensis - average 1200 cc
Homo erectus - range 750 to 1225 cc
Homo georgicus - range 600 to 780 cc
Homo habilis - range 500 to 800 cc
Australopithecus afarensis - range 375 to 550 cc

For comparison, modern chimps range from 275 to 500 cc

I'm not seeing a clear gap in that feature.

Which one should we look at next?

Everything below Erectus are APE and the variance in Erectus is because some ape fossils are deemed Erectus, when they are not really the same creature, and some are mixed Ape fossils and Erectus fossils found near each other...when you view the two most famous skulls one is clearly ape-kind and the other human-kind...

In fact recently regarding Habalis Leaky and others (Miller J.M.A. (2000). "Craniofacial variation in Homo habilis: an analysis of the evidence for multiple species". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 112 (1): 103–128.) have been pushing for a reclassification as Austrlo not Homo...

In my opinion that is more correct
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Everything below Erectus are APE and the variance in Erectus is because some ape fossils are deemed Erectus, when they are not really the same creature, and some are mixed Ape fossils and Erectus fossils found near each other...when you view the two most famous skulls one is clearly ape-kind and the other human-kind...

In fact recently regarding Habalis Leaky and others (Miller J.M.A. (2000). "Craniofacial variation in Homo habilis: an analysis of the evidence for multiple species". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 112 (1): 103–128.) have been pushing for a reclassification as Austrlo not Homo...

In my opinion that is more correct
Do you feel the differences are clear enough that you could reliably and consistently distinguish between "ape" erectus specimens and "human" specimens?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Do you feel the differences are clear enough that you could reliably and consistently distinguish between "ape" erectus specimens and "human" specimens?

I think any one who's opinion has not been or is no longer "shaped" can look objectively, and the rest cannot. I also believe that over time more honest scientists discover and point out the discrepancies (like we see with Dubois's fraudulent Java man Erectus).

And then there are some who will interpret the evidence from the hypothesis rather than letting the evidence shape the hypothesis. They are as much concerned for legislatively excluding any other idea from being discussed in public with the exception of on forums like this (which they cannot control...the internet right now is one of the last bastions of free speech) then they are for displaying the simple truth.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I think any one who's opinion has not been or is no longer "shaped" can look objectively, and the rest cannot. I also believe that over time more honest scientists discover and point out the discrepancies (like we see with Dubois's fraudulent Java man Erectus).

And then there are some who will interpret the evidence from the hypothesis rather than letting the evidence shape the hypothesis. They are as much concerned for legislatively excluding any other idea from being discussed in public with the exception of on forums like this (which they cannot control...the internet right now is one of the last bastions of free speech) then they are for displaying the simple truth.
That doesn't really answer my question. Do you think you personally could reliably differentiate between H. erectus that are really just apes, and H. erectus that are totally human?
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That doesn't really answer my question. Do you think you personally could reliably differentiate between H. erectus that are really just apes, and H. erectus that are totally human?

Haing thought I did answer, fine, pretty much so yes...after what I have seen, I can do no worse than many of these alleged "experts".

Now I may be incorrect but I sense a set up here so let's have it...
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
We have recently found 1,307 orphan genes that are completely different between humans and chimpanzees, and these from just four areas of tissue samples. We can only imagine the vast numbers of differences that will be revealed once more areas of the anatomy and physiology are analyzed (see J. Ruiz-Orera, 2015, “Origins of De Novo Genes in Humans and Chimpanzees”, PLoS Genetics. 11 (12): e1005721)


Orphan genes, as many here know, are found only particular lineages of creature or sometimes only in a specific species or variety within a species. What is really interesting is they appear to have no evolutionary history. Despite that we have come to know these genes are incredibly important! Their expression often dictates very specific qualities and processes allowing for specialized adaptations of particular tissues, like the antisense gene, NCYM, which is over-expressed in neuroblastoma; this gene inhibits the activity of glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK3β), which targets NMYC for degradation (Suenaga Y, Islam SMR, Alagu J, Kaneko Y, Kato M, et al. (2014) NCYM, a Cis-antisense gene of MYCN, encodes a de novo evolved protein that inhibits GSK3β resulting in the stabilization of MYCN in human neuroblastomas. PLoS Genet 10: e1003996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003996). Some contribute to specific proteins unique only to that species or to varieties within a species.


This genetic curiosity has been being studied for around 20 years with little insight as to why they are there at all (where did they come from), and we are just beginning to see how they function, but the doubted thousands of additional differences this will add to the human/chimp difference scenario is staggering.


Any thoughts?
One way to see similarity is to look at the finished produce...a man and a chimp. Then ask a small child is we are the same. The rest is smoke and mirrors.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Haing thought I did answer, fine, pretty much so yes...after what I have seen, I can do no worse than many of these alleged "experts".

Now I may be incorrect but I sense a set up here so let's have it...
Not really a setup, pretty straightforward really. As I've said, I couldn't reliably distinguish between much larger variances, so I'd be rather impressed if you can consistently resolve specimens at this level according to whatever rules you wish to use. When I get some time I'll whip up a chart for you to try your hand at.

EDIT: how long do you think it would take you to decide if a given skull is human or ape? I might try making a timed quiz where anyone can try their hand. I've been looking for a decent web project recently.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0