What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Astrid]

The ambiguity of species definition is a reflection of different contexts, perspectives and times.

Species do not exist in nature. They are classifier intended to organise our descriptions and observations of organisms. They are a system that is there for convenience. It simplifies discussion about organisms, their behaviour and relationships. Somewhat different definitions facilitate different types of discussion. If this makes you uncomfortable, confused, or frustrated that is - unfortunately - your problem. The only solution I know of is a combination of acceptance and education. Your choice.

When someone thinks they've a "gotcha" they are
loathe to give it up, or face how ridiculous it makes
them look.

 

[o_mlly]

Cut to the chase. Here's the difference:

Chimps in 1900

and in 1969

Men in 1900

Men in 1969.

 

[HitchSlap]

Cut to the chase. Here's the difference:

Chimps in 1900
View attachment 300722
and in 1969
View attachment 300724
Men in 1900
View attachment 300725
Men in 1969.
View attachment 300726

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then I referenced a post; not a definition. Please be precise.

Another dodge on giving an unambiguous definition for "species".


No need for emotions. Don't be sorry; let's be rational about the matter and define our terms.

I'm not dodging. If you want a good definition(s) for species, check a biology textbook. I work with what ever definition(s) they have.

Macro/micro, I don't care. I know these terms mostly from creationist claims and posts.

Here's the big question:

Q. If Humans and Chimps used to be the same group (via a common ancestral group) would you consider the changes to go from "Ancestors" to Chimps as macroevolution? The same for "Ancestors" to Humans, is it macroevolution. [Bonus question: did it happen?"]

 

[Hans Blaster]

Cut to the chase. Here's the difference:

Chimps in 1900
View attachment 300722
and in 1969
View attachment 300724

Those are literally the same picture, with one in color, the other monochrome. At best the picture comes from only one of those years.

 

[Frank Robert]

Sorry, not my problem ... yours.

The concept of species is flawed. So why is it so important to us?

At its most basic, this traditional species concept, useful for theoretically dividing up life into groups is flawed for a number of reasons.
​

Species concept - Wikipedia

The species problem is the set of questions that arises when biologists attempt to define what a species is. Such a definition is called a species concept; there are at least 26 recognized species concepts.
​

The Species Problem: A Conceptual Problem?

Few biological problems have remained as consistently challenging through the past two centuries as the species problem.​

It is not a problem in the way think. Species are classified according to the available evidence.

From the Guardian article.
Take, for example, Omura’s whale. At around 10m long, they aren’t exactly small animals but it was only last year that they were observed for any length of time as living animals - previously they were only known from a few beached individuals and specimens caught by Japanese science vessels. If a whale species can go virtually unnoticed imagine how many smaller organisms we’ve missed. ​

That has nothing to do with the definition of species.

Genetic analysis is a relatively new tool in the biologist’s toolkit. However, it isn’t as powerful as science fiction might suggest.​

That is gibberish.

Does your problem with species have more to do with your denial of speciation and other natural evolution processes than with quibbling over a definition. When I was writing a response to your comment on feathers and scales the thought that went through my mind was the difficulty you would have in understanding common ancestry and change over time because creationist deny and reject them.

To be fair to you, you can be critical of science but where you are unfair is in your attempt to cheapen evolutionary science because of things that not be clear to you.

​

 

[Frank Robert]

Chimpanzees are not our cousins.

Cousins is descriptive of closeness, I do realize though that for some people brothers would be closer.

 

[HitchSlap]

Cousins is descriptive of closeness, I do realize though that for some people brothers would be closer.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Either way, it's just Crisco made to taste like peanuts.

Agreed, but without the Crisco and sugar, it is quite good, just doesn't have much of a shelf life.

 

[AV1611VET]

Cousins is descriptive of closeness, I do realize though that for some people brothers would be closer.

Okay, that's funny.

 

[AV1611VET]

* My Brother The Ape *

 

[o_mlly]

I'm not dodging. If you want a good definition(s) for species, check a biology textbook. I work with what ever definition(s) they have.

Macro/micro, I don't care. I know these terms mostly from creationist claims and posts.

Well, let's try to figure this out. You're not an evolutionist, you post frequently in the "Creation & Evolution" forum, you have no definitions for key terms in evo theory, you don't care about them anyway, and you ask others to defend evo theory.

Then I guess you must be a "Creationist".

Those are literally the same picture, with one in color, the other monochrome. At best the picture comes from only one of those years.

Exactly! We don't need a new chimp picture for 1969.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hitch, were you here way back when someone posted a cartoon video showing a man riding a T. Rex; and a scientist comes along and says they didn't co-exist, and the T. Rex tail-drives him about 500 yards into the distance?

Something like that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, let's try to figure this out. You're not an evolutionist, you post frequently in the "Creation & Evolution" forum, you have no definitions for key terms in evo theory, you don't care about them anyway, and you ask others to defend evo theory.

Then I guess you must be a "Creationist".

False. "Evolutionist" is *not* a term used by those who accept the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection. Outside a few evolutionary biologist who use the term to self-describe their profession, the only ones using "evolutionist" are creationists to describe their "opponents" and imply that evolution is a dogma, philosophy, or religion -- it is not.

I'm not an evolutionist since I do not study evolution professionally and I reject your attempt to label me as such. I am a physicist, not because I accept the world described by physics, but because it is my profession.

 

[Ophiolite]

Cut to the chase. Here's the difference:

Third rate rhetoric. One of my cousins was a welder in a shipyard. Another, somewhat more distant, was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Lest you need a translation - cousins are similar, but they are not identical. Moreover your picture illustrates cultural evolution, not biological evolution. And, for that matter, chimps also exhibit cultural evolution. It's just not as dramatic as human cultural evolution, because - that's right - cousins are similar, not identical.

 

[o_mlly]

To be fair to you, you can be critical of science but where you are unfair is in your attempt to cheapen evolutionary science because of things that not be clear to you.

Well, now who's being unfair. I presently favor Process Structuralism as an evo theory. I posted that a fundamental problem with other evo theories is an over reliance on randomness. In a presumed determined universe, claiming randomness is simply to admit ignorance. Structuralism not only introduces constraints on that randomness but explains convergence as well as divergence. Once the physicists get involved, quantam mechanics will move, IMHO, the ball even further toward a coherent theory of a directed evolution. Stay tuned.

 

[o_mlly]

I'm not an evolutionist since I do not study evolution professionally and I reject your attempt to label me as such. I am a physicist, not because I accept the world described by physics, but because it is my profession.

Good. You're profession is in the batter's box.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Good. You're profession is in the batter's box.

Nope. Wrong thread. Wrong sub-forum.

 

[Frank Robert]

Well, now who's being unfair. I presently favor Process Structuralism as an evo theory. I posted that a fundamental problem with other evo theories is an over reliance on randomness. In a presumed determined universe, claiming randomness is simply to admit ignorance. Structuralism not only introduces constraints on that randomness but explains convergence as well as divergence. Once the physicists get involved, quantam mechanics will move, IMHO, the ball even further toward a coherent theory of a directed evolution. Stay tuned.

Wake me when that happens.

 

[o_mlly]

Third rate rhetoric.

Thank you. I take it you give me a "C". I didn't think it was all that good.

One of my cousins was a welder in a shipyard. Another, somewhat more distant, was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

I think you are making my point.

Lest you need a translation - cousins are similar, but they are not identical. Moreover your picture illustrates cultural evolution, not biological evolution. And, for that matter, chimps also exhibit cultural evolution.

Citations, please.