At times like this...

[Jamdoc]

That's not how it works. If you have a microbiology degree you should be aware that when looking for an explanation for some phenomenon, such as the diversity of life on Earth, any number of hypotheses can be proposed, informed - or not - by the available evidence.

Proposed hypotheses can then be examined and ranked using abductive reasoning, i.e. seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations. This is usually done fairly informally. The common abductive criteria for scientific hypotheses include:

1. Testability: what predictions it makes and how they can be tested - ideally predictions of the currently unknown.
2. Fruitfulness: the predictions it makes are borne out by observation; i.e. they are correct.
3. Explanatory power: how much it adds to our understanding of the phenomenon, how much it unifies our knowledge. An explanation that raises more direct questions than it answers, particularly unanswerable questions, has no explanatory power.
4. Parsimony: it does not invoke more assumptions, entities, or forces than necessary; e.g. Occam's razor.
5. Conservatism: Coheres with, and doesn't contradict, established knowledge. A tie-breaker - this one can be dropped if it outperforms in the other criteria.

The God hypothesis, like the 'Magic' hypothesis, necessarily ranks at the bottom of any list of hypotheses because each fails every criterion. From (3) above, they are not explanations but labels for a lack of an explanation.

Consequently, neither the God hypothesis or the 'Magic' hypothesis is an explanatory hypothesis. That, formally, is why they are generally not included in scientific investigations.

Because the existence of God is not something that can be empirically proven, any testable hypothesis assumes there is no God, which affects the interpretation of any and all data collected to support that hypothesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because the existence of God is not something that can be empirically proven, any testable hypothesis assumes there is no God, which affects the interpretation of any and all data collected to support that hypothesis.

Where did you get that idea from? No testable hypothesis assumes that. I wish that we were able to make monetary bets here. I would be a rich man.

 

[Jamdoc]

Where did you get that idea from? No testable hypothesis assumes that. I wish that we were able to make monetary bets here. I would be a rich man.

Any estimate for last common ancestor where there's no direct fossil record evidence is always assumed to be millions of years back because that's how long it would take for the evolution to occur on its own by chance. There is no fossil evidence of the last common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees, and no precise dating, but evolutionary biologists estimate about 13-7 million years ago for the split, and that is what is accepted in biology textbooks. No hard evidence, just an assumption, and it's an assumption based on the precept that it happens naturally on its own, with no outside influence from any source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any estimate for last common ancestor where there's no direct fossil record evidence is always assumed to be millions of years back because that's how long it would take for the evolution to occur on its own by chance. There is no fossil evidence of the last common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees, and no precise dating, but evolutionary biologists estimate about 13-7 million years ago for the split, and that is what is accepted in biology textbooks. No hard evidence, just an assumption, and it's an assumption based on the precept that it happens naturally on its own, with no outside influence from any source.

That is false. The evidence was already in and the fossil record is only a small part of it. There is no need for assumption when it comes to the age of the Earth. Here is a simple example, when you drop a heavy hammer above your foot and you move it out of the way do you move it (hopefully you do) because you assume that it will fall or because you know from past experience that it will fall? If you believe in a young Earth then we need to go over middle school level science that you should have learned while growing up.

And all you had was wild hand waving and breaking of the Ninth Commandment. You need reliable sources when you make such a claim.

You failed. Are you ready to admit your error yet?

 

[Jamdoc]

That is false. The evidence was already in and the fossil record is only a small part of it. There is no need for assumption when it comes to the age of the Earth. Here is a simple example, when you drop a heavy hammer above your foot and you move it out of the way do you move it (hopefully you do) because you assume that it will fall or because you know from past experience that it will fall? If you believe in a young Earth then we need to go over middle school level science that you should have learned while growing up.

And all you had was wild hand waving and breaking of the Ninth Commandment. You need reliable sources when you make such a claim.

You failed. Are you ready to admit your error yet?

There IS no direct evidence of a last common ancestor between Humans and Chimpanzees. NONE. It is given as an ESTIMATE, and that estimate is based on ASSUMPTIONS.
We don't even have the same number of pairs of chromosomes. Which is usually enough genetic difference to separate into separate taxonomic families. We'd be the same order (Primates), but not the same family (Great Apes).

 

[Subduction Zone]

There IS no direct evidence of a last common ancestor between Humans and Chimpanzees. NONE. It is given as an ESTIMATE, and that estimate is based on ASSUMPTIONS.
We don't even have the same number of pairs of chromosomes. Which is usually enough genetic difference to separate into separate taxonomic families. We'd be the same order (Primates), but not the same family (Great Apes).

I don't think you understand the concept of evidence.

And ironically one very strong piece of evidence arises from the fact that we do not have the same number of chromosomes as other Great Apes.

Tell us exactly what you mean by "direct evidence" . We have endless scientific evidence and that is far better.

 

[Jamdoc]

I don't think you understand the concept of evidence.

And ironically one very strong piece of evidence arises from the fact that we do not have the same number of chromosomes as other Great Apes.

Tell us exactly what you mean by "direct evidence" . We have endless scientific evidence and that is far better.

direct evidence of a last common ancestor would be fossilized remains of said last common ancestor that could be dated.
When the estimate is 7-13 million years ago, that's not a solid evidence based estimate. That's speculation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

direct evidence of a last common ancestor would be fossilized remains of said last common ancestor that could be dated.
When the estimate is 7-13 million years ago, that's not a solid evidence based estimate. That's speculation.

That would be no more "direct" than the modern day analysis of DNA in humans and other apes. Also we can do DNA analysis on some relatively recent finds such as Neanderthal and Denisovans. I don't know if they have any Homo erectus DNA, they might be too old.

And you contradicted yourself. An estimate is not speculation. You need to learn the difference. Of course there is no need for a physical common ancestor. What you are doing is a form of special pleading when you ignore even stronger evidence than such a find would be.

 

[Jamdoc]

That would be no more "direct" than the modern day analysis of DNA in humans and other apes. Also we can do DNA analysis on some relatively recent finds such as Neanderthal and Denisovans. I don't know if they have any Homo erectus DNA, they might be too old.

And you contradicted yourself. An estimate is not speculation. You need to learn the difference. Of course there is no need for a physical common ancestor. What you are doing is a form of special pleading when you ignore even stronger evidence than such a find would be.

DNA analysis doesn't give a time. Fossilized remains would give an estimated time aside from a ballpark figure which is what we get. 7-13 million years ago, that's 6 million years of uncertainty, a substantial amount of time compared to the total amount of time of the estimate.
So that figure is speculative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

DNA analysis doesn't give a time. Fossilized remains would give an estimated time aside from a ballpark figure which is what we get. 7-13 million years ago, that's 6 million years of uncertainty, a substantial amount of time compared to the total amount of time of the estimate.
So that figure is speculative.

Actually it can. I am far from an expert, but there are factors that allow a time estimate to be made without speculation. We know the rate of mutations. Past populations can be determined by genetic diversity. All you have is hand waving. I don't have much more. But I can link to the work that supports this. What do you have?

And yes, that is a large error bar. Why is that a problem?

 

[Jamdoc]

Actually it can. I am far from an expert, but there are factors that allow a time estimate to be made without speculation. We know the rate of mutations. Past populations can be determined by genetic diversity. All you have is hand waving. I don't have much more. But I can link to the work that supports this. What do you have?

And yes, that is a large error bar. Why is that a problem?

When there's almost as much uncertainty in your estimate as the entire estimate itself, it's not a very solid evidence based estimate it's speculation.

The rate of randomly occurring mutations is also an assumption, it's estimates based on probability. But just like probability can have outliers where someone will roll a die the same number multiple times in a row, despite the probability of such an occurrence being really low, the rate of mutation isn't constant, it's estimated. Not to mention, naturalist abiogenesis and evolution stakes its entire world view on low probability occurrences happening coincidentally enough times to defy all probability. To you, life itself is an outlier of random chance. So have more respect for your own philosophy before declaring rates of random coincidental events as constant enough to measure time by reliably.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When there's almost as much uncertainty in your estimate as the entire estimate itself, it's not a very solid evidence based estimate it's speculation.

The rate of randomly occurring mutations is also an assumption, it's estimates based on probability. But just like probability can have outliers where someone will roll a die the same number multiple times in a row, despite the probability of such an occurrence being really low, the rate of mutation isn't constant, it's estimated. Not to mention, naturalist abiogenesis and evolution stakes its entire world view on low probability occurrences happening coincidentally enough times to defy all probability. To you, life itself is an outlier of random chance. So have more respect for your own philosophy before declaring rates of random coincidental events as constant enough to measure time by reliably.

No, it is not speculation look up the meaning of the word. A minimum time and a maximum time were calculated. They are putting reasonable limits on an event based upon evidence and analysis. That is not speculation.

 

[Jamdoc]

No, it is not speculation look up the meaning of the word. A minimum time and a maximum time were calculated. They are putting reasonable limits on an event based upon evidence and analysis. That is not speculation.

.. an estimate without firm evidence.
that's speculation.
There is no fossil evidence of a last common ancestor in those time periods, so the estimate is based comparing rates of SNP's as a constant.. when they're most certainly not. Not firm evidence.
So speculation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

.. an estimate without firm evidence.
that's speculation.
There is no fossil evidence of a last common ancestor in those time periods, so the estimate is based comparing rates of SNP's as a constant.. when they're most certainly not. Not firm evidence.
So speculation.

No, the evidence is firm. The date derived from the data is not firm. There is no doubt about the evolution of man. It can be difficult to nail down a specific date. The same things happen in CSI cases. Various factors can affect the estimate of the time of death of an individual. But there is no doubt that the victim is dead.

 

[pitabread]

direct evidence of a last common ancestor would be fossilized remains of said last common ancestor that could be dated.
When the estimate is 7-13 million years ago, that's not a solid evidence based estimate. That's speculation.

Can you identify your precise ancestors from 1500 years ago? How about 1000 years ago? 500 years ago even?

But I bet you still accept that they existed.

 

[Jamdoc]

Can you identify your precise ancestors from 1500 years ago? How about 1000 years ago? 500 years ago even?

But I bet you still accept that they existed.

I know they were human, you can't even determine what species your "missing link" is, you know almost nothing about them.
You don't know when the chromosome fusion happened, or how.
All you can do is speculate, which is in a way, acting on faith, just the wrong faith.

 

[pitabread]

I know they were human, you can't even determine what species your "missing link" is, you know almost nothing about them.

Species don't come with a label stamped on them. They are assigned for ease of discussion and classification.

Insofar as what they were like, we do have a representative fossil record of hominid species going back millions of years. A common ancestor would have been similar to such species.

You don't know when the chromosome fusion happened, or how.

Mechanisms for chromosomal fusions are documented. In fact, there have been some documented cases of humans with only 22 pairs of chromosomes.

All you can do is speculate, which is in a way, acting on faith, just the wrong faith.

It's not speculation when it's based on the available evidence. All the evidence points to humans sharing common ancestry with other primates.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know they were human, you can't even determine what species your "missing link" is, you know almost nothing about them.
You don't know when the chromosome fusion happened, or how.
All you can do is speculate, which is in a way, acting on faith, just the wrong faith.

We know that like us it was an ape. We also know that it was the ancestor of chimps. And "missing link" is a creationist claim. It really should not be used. The "missing link" that they demanded was found a long time ago. So of course they moved the goalposts.

Actually the evidence that we have for the fusion is extremely strong. Do you know what it is? It appears that all that you have is denial. But then when one side has all of the evidence that is all that is left.

 

[Jamdoc]

We know that like us it was an ape. We also know that it was the ancestor of chimps. And "missing link" is a creationist claim. It really should not be used. The "missing link" that they demanded was found a long time ago. So of course they moved the goalposts.

Actually the evidence that we have for the fusion is extremely strong. Do you know what it is? It appears that all that you have is denial. But then when one side has all of the evidence that is all that is left.

No you get me wrong. I know there was a fused chromosome but where you see something random by chance, an outlier of probability, I see something deliberate and intentional.
Animals evolved, but the how I believe is deliberate, rather than coincidences of randomly occurring events.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No you get me wrong. I know there was a fused chromosome but where you see something random by chance, an outlier of probability, I see something deliberate and intentional.
Animals evolved, but the how I believe is deliberate, rather than coincidences of randomly occurring events.

Then you need to find evidence for that. So far no one has found any. And it really is not random chance. Think of the lottery. The odds of you or I winning it is almost zero. The odds of someone winning it eventually is practically one. And the odds of "winning" genetic combinations are all but guaranteed when one is running hundreds of millions of genetic tests at the same time. Yes, some events, such as the fused chromosome are chance. But the odd of that happening eventually is not that bad. If you don't trust me look at some animals that are even more closely related than man and chimps. Takes horses and zebras as an example. They are still so closely related that they can interbreed. Just for fun Google search the number of chromosomes of each.