a) I have seen it and do not deny it (just the stock interpretation of it)
What parts of the interpretation do you deny, and why? (following are your questions and my response)
1. Do you deny that Lucy has features in common with both less derived apes and with modern humans?
Yes it can be explained that way but I do not believe homology (similarity in characteristics) necessitates relationship in a transitional sense (only in a design sense). In Ape kind many of those similarities proved unsuccessful over time.
2. Do you deny that the theory of evolution predicts a nested hierarchy which includes species with a mixture of features with human and ancestral apes?
First off, a nested hierarchy is one way that one categorizes groups of things (or organisms) placing one above another (which may or may not have attached “values” of things, like superiority/inferiority, more evolved/less evolved) and CAN BE seen as an indicator (though not necessarily true) that one thing bred or became another.
So Lucy
can be seen this way if one assumes that natural selection via speciation eventually moves one type of creature with a particular genomic regularity to eventually become another different creature with a different genomic regularity (such as reptiles becoming birds)…which though accepted by many is an assumption based conclusion.
What criteria are you using for your interpretation? What features would a fossil need to have in order to be transitional as part of your interpretation?
Two questions here that are not necessarily related…
What criteria are you using for your interpretation?
I am not speaking of an interpretation, I am showing that
matters of interpretation contain a subjective and sometimes “taught” aspect that is hard for most people to escape and therefore look at or assess data objectively.
My “criteria” is let the data alone speak and shape the theory (causing one to make continuous adjustments to hypotheses) rather than allowing (and I understand this is difficult for many) the hypothesis to interpret the data. Because early apes have a similar arm structure does NOT automatically mean our arms (only slightly different) CAME FROM this earlier form….just that the DNA governing structure in all primates contains the blueprint for this form.
Could one have developed from the other? Could be, might be….but could be/might be does not equal IS…thinking in alternatives is not only much healthier and supportive of more intellectual integrity, but is the source of all real progress and ingenuity even in science…one should always think outside the box rather than be robotically tied only to the box.
What features would a fossil need to have in order to be transitional as part of your interpretation?
Since I do not believe the evidence necessitates fish becoming amphibian, amphibian reptile, reptile bird, etc., the concept does not apply the same as YOU would define it. I do see basic bears becoming a variety of bears, grey wolf and maybe a few more eventually becoming (via their genetic potentials) many varieties (yes also aided by cross breeding and concentration of reinforced alleles) just as I see the original humans having the genetic propensities to become (again by interbreeding and reinforced alleles) all the varieties if human we now have (pigmies, watusi, caucasoids, asians, etc.)
b) I do not believe that evolution cannot happen, I believe it does (just not as we were convinced of)
Do you believe that humans could have evolved from a common ancestor shared with other apes? Or is that a conclusion that you refuse to consider?
I do not refuse to consider common ancestry, there just is no evidence it is a fact. I also DO NOT believe we are Apes. It is a theory, a way of interpreting the data that has led to many fine and valuable discoveries that may or may not have been made and seen in different ways. For example many modern neo-Darwinians see man as having evolved FROM ape kind, other as being two divergent lines from a common ancestor, I see each as unique to their own genomic regularity, and each uniquely appearing in the geo-column, and possibly two variations (physically speaking) within the same phylum (one kind of coded product versus another) but not the same genus.
We differ here because I see variation within a given species (ape versus human versus dog versus fish) and you see human and ape as the same species/genus having transitioned (from one to the other over time or sharing a common source)
c) I do care what the fossil evidence is (I just do not agree with interpretations resting on homological assessment)
Then tell us what features a fossil would need in order to evidence humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with other apes.
There are none. Each appears in the geo-column separately, suddenly, and fully formed with all ectant and inter-dependent sub-systems functional and in place. And again humans are not apes no matter how many say so because of their predetermined beliefs. Humans and apes are both primates possessing the DNA for structural similarities but they are as different as addition/subtraction is to calculus (Neanderthals, Denisovans, etc., are unsuccessful varieties of Sapien in their history, not quasi slightly more human trogladytes)
If insects have wings, reptiles have wings, birds have wings, mammals have wings, etc., this does not necessitate that one became the other.
Those are not homologous structures. The features shared by humans and Lucy are homologous. Your examples do not work.
You know the point I was trying to make (which I expect you would disagree). For a different example, first look at this photo
Now let me give you an example from
http://evolution.about.com/od/evidence/a/Homologous-Structures.htm where they write
“
Many mammals have similar limb structures. The flipper of a whale, the wing of a bat, and the leg of a cat are all very similar to the human arm. All of the mentioned species have a large upper arm bone (the humerus on the human) and the lower part of the limb is made up of two bones, a larger bone on one side (the radius in humans) and a smaller bone on the other side (the ulna in humans). All of the species also have a collection of smaller bones in the "wrist" area (these are called carpal bones in humans) that lead into the long "fingers" or phalanges. Even though the bone structure in these limbs of the mammals are very similar, the function of the limb itself is very different. The homologous limbs can be used for flying, swimming, walking, or everything humans do with their arms.”
Now comes the imposed
hypothesis that is merely one way of looking at or interpreting the evidence, based on the pre-supposed theory! They go on to conclude….
“
These functions evolved through natural selection as the common ancient ancestor underwent speciation to make all of the diversity we have on Earth today.”
Not only do they imply cross familial morphism as a definite truth (though never demonstrates or observed and tests cannot nor have ever proven) but that they claim it to be the result of natural selection via “speciation” while in reality “speciation” has always and consistently ONLY demonstrated and been observed to provide variation (nothing new such as a new organ or a cross over into another family or phyla). Can’t you see (even IF you agree with the assessment) that the presupposition in being used to explain the data (questionable science) instead of the other way around (real science)?
Now I am not saying they do this conspiratorially (as often falsely accused). No! They really believe this conclusion IS the truth, they are just only able to see through the only box that the pedagoguery will accept.
My point is, that the data alone
must always determine the conclusion one should reach (not limited to the accepted view) if one is being objective…all else is commentary, conjecture, and opinion, nothing else, and certainly NOT “the” established fact (and do not fall for the “
appeal to authority” error).
Paul
