- Nov 25, 2021
- 16
- 8
- 72
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
The Ancestor of the Gaps
The ever elusive (and ever changing) “common ancestor” (sometimes used as a form of the “ancestor of the gaps” default) is possibly somewhat of a misnomer. It could be true, and in fact may be true, but we actually do not have any evidence or proof that it actually IS true, outside within our own species.
In other words, the only “common ancestor” of humans that we can actually demonstrate or observe to be true, is that all the varieties of humans alive at this time came from some earlier forms of “humans” probably dating back as much as a couple of million years ago. But they are human nonetheless.
As indicated elsewhere, Ernst Mayr (who himself BELIEVED in the elusive common ancestor), in What Makes Biology Unique? (p. 198, Cambridge University Press, 2004), 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”. He was simply being honest. He was telling the truth.
Thus, in science we actually have two parts:
a) The actual data we can observe, demonstrate, and apply (this being confirmed) and
b) the constructed narrative attached to explain these things in relation to the presupposed consensus “belief”.(which in time is usually found to be in error or needing to be changed)
Simply put, interpretation is not reality. It is largely opinion, and as we have seen over and over from the history of science, it is not always correct, even when there is consensus.
So for example, we indeed share common ancestry, but as of now (despite the narrative you have been taught over and over), those ancestors are only human. Albeit different varieties, with varying characteristics, but human nonetheless.
Each day as science is applied, we change and alter preciously held convictions by discovering, uncovering, and applying additional data, and hopefully fresh eyes that interpret the same data differently (just in this field we can look at Denis Noble, James Shapiro, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, and others who now question many aspects of the standard Modern Synthesis model).
Just remember this as your motto. Could be and may be does not equal IS.
The language of possibility does not describe established fact. Alleged authority does not assure their interpretation as necessarily being true. And consensus (argumentum ad populum) is not always correct or accurate.
The history of science shows us that for progress to be made, individuals must come along who are willing to step outside the popularized box. Newton stepped outside Copernicus, and Einstein stepped outside the Newtonian model, and Planck stepped outside of the Einsteinian box, and so on. And all of these men would have encouraged what I have just said. I assure you that in another 100, or a 1,000 years, much that is believed today, or thought to be “established”, will at best be viewed as merely foundational, but very possibly antiquated, ignorance, inefficient, or even obsolete.
So I am not saying the ancestor of the gaps has no truth value, because it may. But as of now, it is entirely a non-demonstrated, never observed, and a very elusive, ever changing, pre-supposition.
The ever elusive (and ever changing) “common ancestor” (sometimes used as a form of the “ancestor of the gaps” default) is possibly somewhat of a misnomer. It could be true, and in fact may be true, but we actually do not have any evidence or proof that it actually IS true, outside within our own species.
In other words, the only “common ancestor” of humans that we can actually demonstrate or observe to be true, is that all the varieties of humans alive at this time came from some earlier forms of “humans” probably dating back as much as a couple of million years ago. But they are human nonetheless.
As indicated elsewhere, Ernst Mayr (who himself BELIEVED in the elusive common ancestor), in What Makes Biology Unique? (p. 198, Cambridge University Press, 2004), 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”. He was simply being honest. He was telling the truth.
Thus, in science we actually have two parts:
a) The actual data we can observe, demonstrate, and apply (this being confirmed) and
b) the constructed narrative attached to explain these things in relation to the presupposed consensus “belief”.(which in time is usually found to be in error or needing to be changed)
Simply put, interpretation is not reality. It is largely opinion, and as we have seen over and over from the history of science, it is not always correct, even when there is consensus.
So for example, we indeed share common ancestry, but as of now (despite the narrative you have been taught over and over), those ancestors are only human. Albeit different varieties, with varying characteristics, but human nonetheless.
Each day as science is applied, we change and alter preciously held convictions by discovering, uncovering, and applying additional data, and hopefully fresh eyes that interpret the same data differently (just in this field we can look at Denis Noble, James Shapiro, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, and others who now question many aspects of the standard Modern Synthesis model).
Just remember this as your motto. Could be and may be does not equal IS.
The language of possibility does not describe established fact. Alleged authority does not assure their interpretation as necessarily being true. And consensus (argumentum ad populum) is not always correct or accurate.
The history of science shows us that for progress to be made, individuals must come along who are willing to step outside the popularized box. Newton stepped outside Copernicus, and Einstein stepped outside the Newtonian model, and Planck stepped outside of the Einsteinian box, and so on. And all of these men would have encouraged what I have just said. I assure you that in another 100, or a 1,000 years, much that is believed today, or thought to be “established”, will at best be viewed as merely foundational, but very possibly antiquated, ignorance, inefficient, or even obsolete.
So I am not saying the ancestor of the gaps has no truth value, because it may. But as of now, it is entirely a non-demonstrated, never observed, and a very elusive, ever changing, pre-supposition.
