RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 578 579 580 581 582 [583] 584 585 586 587 588 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2016,20:35   

A little girl was talking to her teacher about whales. The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human because even though it was a very large mammal its throat was very small. The little girl stated that Jonah was swallowed by a whale. Irritated, the teacher reiterated that a whale could not swallow a human; it was physically impossible. The little girl said, "When I get to heaven I will ask Jonah". The teacher asked, "What if Jonah went to hell?" The little girl replied, "Then you ask him".

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2016,21:27   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 03 2016,11:15)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2016,10:09)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 03 2016,07:37)
Yes, Gary, trying to teach you the truth is persecution.  For the teachers, anyway.

When Texas Teach dies and goes to hell, he's going to find himself in a classroom.  With Gaulin as his only student.  For eternity.

OMG! :O

New plan: live forever.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2016,22:03   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 03 2016,20:27)
New plan: live forever.

So far, so good.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2016,09:18   

Quote
New plan: live forever.


Good plan.

The first 100 years are the trick.  Almost no one dies after 100.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2016,18:25   

Well, you know, Elvis himself would still be alive today . . . . .


If he hadn't died.  

:O  ;)  :)

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2016,18:28   

Twas 'writ:  
Quote
When Texas Teach dies and goes to hell, he's going to find himself in a classroom.  With Gaulin as his only student.  For eternity.


And nobody, but nobody, can find a red pen!

(Just thought I'd throw that out there, don't ask me how I know about those things . . . . . )

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2016,20:24   

But wouldn't red be the predominant color there?

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2016,20:27   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 07 2016,20:24)
But wouldn't red be the predominant color there?

Don't ask me, I'm color blind.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2016,06:52   

According to my wife our checking account problem was fixed and Wells Fargo was paid.

I also had a dental check up and some initial work done. But if Donald Trump wins the election then it will most likely have been a waste of time, because without the "Obama Care" he promised to eliminate after entering office there is no way I can afford the work that's needed.

Anyway, to hell with science. I have to get back to my day job.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2016,07:50   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 08 2016,07:52)
...Anyway, to hell with science.
 Hasn't that been your operational model all along?  Evidence suggests so.
Quote
I have to get back to my day job.

We've been telling you that for a decade.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2016,09:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 08 2016,14:52)
According to my wife our checking account problem was fixed and Wells Fargo was paid.

I also had a dental check up and some initial work done. But if Donald Trump wins the election then it will most likely have been a waste of time, because without the "Obama Care" he promised to eliminate after entering office there is no way I can afford the work that's needed.

Anyway, to hell with science. I have to get back to my day job.

So did you vote for a politician that will support The Affordable Health Care Act aka 'Obama Care'?

I  suppose i should ask if you are registered to vote.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2016,17:41   

Friday I went to the dentist expecting some minor work in preparation for denture work. But ended up up with old teeth gone and new choppers rattling around that is totally messing up my proprioception circuity, which is still trying to gag it out of me. I had no idea it was going to all at once happen like that. I previously mentioned to the staff that I would rather not have to worry about what is next, might as well surprise me. In this case they did, by making what I thought would take months more of visits all at once happen real fast. But with Donald Trump expected to eliminate the health care program that made this possible it's a good thing that my major dental work is now done and over with.

After winning the election Donald mentioned needing our help restoring the nation he divided, which led to my spending a little time in the Reddit evolution forum. This thread later links to a new topic for the new chromosome banding illustrations I just made:

https://www.reddit.com/r....d9....d9wgtac

Most heartwarming is this group hug of sorts:

https://www.reddit.com/r....nt....ntext=3

And honorable mention:

https://www.reddit.com/r....d9....d9wg9iy

https://www.reddit.com/r....d9....d9wd6f1

https://www.reddit.com/r....d9....d9wbfxt

With it becoming somewhat obvious that we are probably not most closely related to chimps another mainstay of "Darwinism" is conquerable. If only Charles Darwin had been surrounded by bonobos.. Oh well.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2016,22:35   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2016,17:41)
Friday I went to the dentist expecting some minor work in preparation for denture work. But ended up up with old teeth gone and new choppers rattling around that is totally messing up my proprioception circuity, which is still trying to gag it out of me. I had no idea it was going to all at once happen like that. I previously mentioned to the staff that I would rather not have to worry about what is next, might as well surprise me. In this case they did, by making what I thought would take months more of visits all at once happen real fast. But with Donald Trump expected to eliminate the health care program that made this possible it's a good thing that my major dental work is now done and over with.

After winning the election Donald mentioned needing our help restoring the nation he divided, which led to my spending a little time in the Reddit evolution forum. This thread later links to a new topic for the new chromosome banding illustrations I just made:

https://www.reddit.com/r....d9....d9wgtac

Most heartwarming is this group hug of sorts:

https://www.reddit.com/r....nt....ntext=3

And honorable mention:

https://www.reddit.com/r....d9....d9wg9iy

https://www.reddit.com/r....d9....d9wd6f1

https://www.reddit.com/r....d9....d9wbfxt

With it becoming somewhat obvious that we are probably not most closely related to chimps another mainstay of "Darwinism" is conquerable. If only Charles Darwin had been surrounded by bonobos.. Oh well.

You are being inconsistent and uninformed yet again.
On the one hand, you are insisting on one of the threads that you cited that "human" is broader and earlier than Homo sapiens.  On the other hand, you are insisting that bonobos aren't chimps, and that Darwin was wrong about humans and chimps being most closely related.  

Quote
From Wiki, where as you can see Homo sapiens are surviving "extant members" but are not necessarily the first humans that ever existed


If "humans" include all members of the genus Homo, then shouldn't "chimps" include all members of the genus Pan?  This is particularly true since bonobos were only recently identified as a separate species from regular chimps and can still correctly be called pygmy chimpanzees.  

As bonobos were only discovered in 1929, Darwin's statement was correct for his time, and since bonobos are still in the chimp genus, his statement *technically* remains correct.   It is also possible that both regular chimps and Homo sapiens descended from something close to the bonobo, with humans splitting off before the paniscus / troglodytes split, which would make us equidistant from regular chimps and modern bonobos, and if we and bonobos are in the same clade then Pan troglodytes is in there with us.

Your chromosome-based distinction could be true, but you are getting ahead of the data, as usual, because you have no definitive evidence that that causally relates to our lineage becoming "human".  It's possible, but you don't know.  Your calling the first 46-46 couple "chromosomal Adam" and "chromosomal Eve" is inviting unnecessary confusion with y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve: someone wiser than you would have coined a different term in order to facilitate getting their point across.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2016,00:29   

Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 13 2016,22:35)
If "humans" include all members of the genus Homo, then shouldn't "chimps" include all members of the genus Pan?  This is particularly true since bonobos were only recently identified as a separate species from regular chimps and can still correctly be called pygmy chimpanzees.


The only thing that matters is that "bonobos" are a "separate species". Case closed.

Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 13 2016,22:35)
As bonobos were only discovered in 1929, Darwin's statement was correct for his time, and since bonobos are still in the chimp genus, his statement *technically* remains correct.  


Where bonobos were discovered first then chimps would be seen as an apeish bonobo. And the four year Trump Age has just begun. The more Darwinian icons that can be safely demolished the better.

Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 13 2016,22:35)
It is also possible that both regular chimps and Homo sapiens descended from something close to the bonobo, with humans splitting off before the paniscus / troglodytes split, which would make us equidistant from regular chimps and modern bonobos, and if we and bonobos are in the same clade then Pan troglodytes is in there with us.


Something close to the modern bonobo is all fine by me. Whatever helps unseat chimps from their undeserved reputation of being our closest relative is now of service to science. And our new first lady elect's having been discovered in a porn magazine is just perfect for starting off an age that embraces our inner bonobos.

Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 13 2016,22:35)
Your chromosome-based distinction could be true, but you are getting ahead of the data, as usual, because you have no definitive evidence that that causally relates to our lineage becoming "human".  It's possible, but you don't know.  Your calling the first 46-46 couple "chromosomal Adam" and "chromosomal Eve" is inviting unnecessary confusion with y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve: someone wiser than you would have coined a different term in order to facilitate getting their point across.


The word "human" is still fuzzily defined. But as far as the general public is concerned many already define a human based on first humans named Adam and Eve. Classification systems will not change, the word is not used in them anyway. It's the sort of thing for "we the people" to decide where you can get used to the way it has already been, for a couple thousand years of so.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2016,04:57   

Quote
The word "human" is still fuzzily defined. But as far as the general public is concerned many already define a human based on first humans named Adam and Eve. Classification systems will not change, the word is not used in them anyway. It's the sort of thing for "we the people" to decide where you can get used to the way it has already been, for a couple thousand years of so.


And this pile of ignorance is why the closest you will get to a scientist is your dentist.

"Human" may not be understood by you so "Homo" will pass so far above your head as to have ice on it. The "general public" are not as ignorant of science as you but also science isn't a voting matter. It is evidence driven whether the "general public" vote for or against it.

Quote
Classification systems will not change[..]


Classification systems can and do change in the face of new evidence. Can you say "Archeaopteryx"? Is it a bird (earlier classification) or a Dinosaur (latest classification)?

Quote
But as far as the general public is concerned many already define a human based on first humans named Adam and Eve.


Another assertion based on your bible-twisted 'thinking'. Who are these "General Public"? Hindus? Native Americans? Atheists? Only Bible literalists and inerrantists think this and they are wrong. As are your "General Public" As wrong as voting for the Farter.

I do feel sorry for all the gullible Americans who are still voting for and following the itinerant Snake-oil Salesmen.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2016,05:43   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2016,00:29)

   
Quote
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 13 2016,22:35)
If "humans" include all members of the genus Homo, then shouldn't "chimps" include all members of the genus Pan?  This is particularly true since bonobos were only recently identified as a separate species from regular chimps and can still correctly be called pygmy chimpanzees.


The only thing that matters is that "bonobos" are a "separate species". Case closed.


By your logic, then, everything outside H. sapiens is best considered not "human".

We are not particularly consistent in how broadly we apply different common names to species in the same genus, but there is still a lot of common usage of bonobos as being one sort of chimpanzee:
THE PYGMY CHIMPANZEE: EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR. Edited by Randall L. Susman. Plenum Press, 1984.

THE LAST APE: PYGMY CHIMPANZEE BEHAVIOR AND ECOLOGY. Takayoshi Kano. Stanford University Press, 1992.

From the IUCN Red List of endangered mammals
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details....ls....0
Scientific Name: Pan paniscus
Species Authority: Schwarz, 1929
Common Name(s):
English – Bonobo, Pygmy Chimpanzee, Gracile Chimpanzee, Dwarf Chimpazee

From the WWF
Common names: Bonobo, dwarf chimpanzee, gracile chimpanzee, pygmy chimpanzee;


   
Quote
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 13 2016,22:35)
As bonobos were only discovered in 1929, Darwin's statement was correct for his time, and since bonobos are still in the chimp genus, his statement *technically* remains correct.  


Where bonobos were discovered first then chimps would be seen as an apeish bonobo. And the four year Trump Age has just begun. The more Darwinian icons that can be safely demolished the better.

Non sequiturs.  And why is is so important to you to demolish "Darwinian icons" that you have to contort your logic to do so?  Regardless of what you think of chimps vs bonobos in nomenclature and in relation to us, it remains the case that Darwin extensively compared humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans and was correct in identifying chimps as being closer to us than the others.

   
Quote
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 13 2016,22:35)
It is also possible that both regular chimps and Homo sapiens descended from something close to the bonobo, with humans splitting off before the paniscus / troglodytes split, which would make us equidistant from regular chimps and modern bonobos, and if we and bonobos are in the same clade then Pan troglodytes is in there with us.


Something close to the modern bonobo is all fine by me. Whatever helps unseat chimps from their undeserved reputation of being our closest relative is now of service to science.


Again, you are abusing facts and terminology in service of your preconceptions.  Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus form a clade that is within the clade of Pan + the hominins.  Both living species of Pan are therefore equidistant from us.  You are in the position of arguing that one of your first cousins is more closely related to you than another of your first cousins.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimbal....ids.jpg
http://users.rcn.com/jkimbal....es.html

Whether the common ancestor of the second clade was more similar to a bonobo, a regular chimp, or an ancestral hominin remains unknown (and it also remains both a very interesting question and a good reason to separate the concepts of bonobos and chimpanzees for ease of discussion), but that does not affect the closeness of our relationship to regular chimps and bonobos.  

It may well be the case that Cousin A and you look quite similar to each other and to your common grandfather while Cousin B looks a bit different from the lot of you, but that does not make Cousin B less of a relative (assuming no parental hanky-panky or adoptions).


   
Quote
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 13 2016,22:35)
Your chromosome-based distinction could be true, but you are getting ahead of the data, as usual, because you have no definitive evidence that that causally relates to our lineage becoming "human".  It's possible, but you don't know.  Your calling the first 46-46 couple "chromosomal Adam" and "chromosomal Eve" is inviting unnecessary confusion with y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve: someone wiser than you would have coined a different term in order to facilitate getting their point across.


The word "human" is still fuzzily defined. But as far as the general public is concerned many already define a human based on first humans named Adam and Eve. Classification systems will not change, the word is not used in them anyway. It's the sort of thing for "we the people" to decide where you can get used to the way it has already been, for a couple thousand years of so.

Classification systems of course do change, as knowledge progresses (look up "cladistics", "Pan paniscus", and "Canis lupus familiaris"), but yes, "human" is a fuzzy word that lacks a generally accepted and precise biological definition.

   
Quote
A member of the species Homo sapiens; a human being. A member of any of the extinct species of the genus Homo, such as Homo erectus or Homo habilis, that are considered ancestral or closely related to modern humans.

"Ancestral or closely related" is more than a tad imprecise.  The chromosomal fusion event could be a clarifying distinction, except that when that happened and who that happened to and what its immediate phenotypic consequences were are all unknown.

Re Adam and Eve, there is nothing to be gained by conflating scientific definitions with popular usage, as you have so frequently inadvertently demonstrated.  And why does conflating three pairs of Adams and Eves help anything?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2016,06:31   

If only Gary were as useful, or intelligent, as a bonobo.
Sadly, his pygmy intellect isn't up to the challenge.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2016,15:04   

'Twas writ:  
Quote
If only Gary were as useful, or intelligent, as a bonobo.
Sadly, his pygmy intellect isn't up to the challenge.


The closest Gary got was watching a few episodes of Lance Link.  


Whatta hoot!   :)  :)  :)  :)  :)

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2016,15:31   

Quote (jeffox @ Nov. 14 2016,16:04)
'Twas writ:  
Quote
If only Gary were as useful, or intelligent, as a bonobo.
Sadly, his pygmy intellect isn't up to the challenge.


The closest Gary got was watching a few episodes of Lance Link.  


Whatta hoot!   :)  :)  :)  :)  :)

He's such a Magilla.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2016,00:42   

Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 14 2016,05:43)
By your logic, then, everything outside H. sapiens is best considered not "human".


As in the theory: the very first "humans" are chromosomal Adam and Eve. Therefore: if the 2A+2B fusion exists then a specimen is human. It's that simple.

   
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 14 2016,05:43)
We are not particularly consistent in how broadly we apply different common names to species in the same genus, but there is still a lot of common usage of bonobos as being one sort of chimpanzee:
THE PYGMY CHIMPANZEE: EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR. Edited by Randall L. Susman. Plenum Press, 1984.


The problem for me is that the common names now used to differentiate them are "chimp" and "bonobo". If I instead say "pygmy chimps" then very few would even know what I'm talking about.

In my case I must plan for the future, not cling to the past.

   
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 14 2016,05:43)
And why is is so important to you to demolish "Darwinian icons" that you have to contort your logic to do so?


If people demand change then you must give them something that is scientifically rewarding to have changed. Else they will unknowingly make an even bigger mess of things. And you don't want that right?

   
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 14 2016,05:43)
Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus form a clade that is within the clade of Pan + the hominins.  Both living species of Pan are therefore equidistant from us.  You are in the position of arguing that one of your first cousins is more closely related to you than another of your first cousins.


What you said might help explain why it's such a mix and match of traits. But still, from what I can see the differences between bonobos and chimps are similar to chimps and gorillas.

You are describing what I expected to find. After seeing the results it was clear that they were far from looking like cousins.

   
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 14 2016,05:43)
Classification systems of course do change, as knowledge progresses (look up "cladistics", "Pan paniscus", and "Canis lupus familiaris"), but yes, "human" is a fuzzy word that lacks a generally accepted and precise biological definition.


Yes, thank you.

In our cultures the most generally accepted definition of them all starts with first humans, Adam and Eve. It's not a science based definition, but it's already there. The only thing that is needed to make it also a scientific concept is to find some truth to the story.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2016,02:49   

Quote
In our cultures the most generally accepted definition of them all starts with first humans, Adam and Eve. It's not a science based definition, but it's already there. The only thing that is needed to make it also a scientific concept is to find some truth to the story.


There you go. Gaulin, now that your not-a-theory is so widely accepted you can start the search for Adam and Eve's remains. Remember how successful were the searches for Noah's Ark? Why they found loads of them! Then you could find the original Garden. Think of the fame...the fortune.. the utter lack of credibility. You could become a bigger laughing stock than you are now. And you still do not understand the word 'definition'.

 
Quote
The problem for me is that the common names now used to differentiate them are "chimp" and "bonobo". If I instead say "pygmy chimps" then very few would even know what I'm talking about.


Not the only problem you have but if you were to use the binomial names, as N.Wells and NoName have so considerately given you, your confusion will disappear. But, of course, that would have to mean you learning some science. Something you have signally failed to do to date.

 
Quote
If people demand change then you must give them something that is scientifically rewarding to have changed.


Which makes your total failure so obvious. Your grammar is still atrocious.

 
Quote
But still, from what I can see the differences between bonobos and chimps are similar to chimps and gorillas.


Then after your dental work I suggest an eye check-up. Get rid of the Jesus goggles.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2016,05:52   

Let's clarify.  

 
Quote
 
Quote
[From me] You are in the position of arguing that one of your first cousins is more closely related to you than another of your first cousins.


[From Gary].......You are describing what I expected to find. After seeing the results it was clear that they were far from looking like cousins.

It doesn't work that way - they are both our cousins, they are equidistant from us. In the image below, the older girls are non-identical twins, and they are holding their younger sisters, who are also non-identical twins.
http://www.pregnancy-bliss.co.uk/TTTS.ht....TS.html

According to you, which of the sisters are more closely related?


There is indeed an important question about the appearance of our last common ancestor with the Pan line: did it look and behave more like Pan troglodytes, more like the bonobo, more like Lucy, or was it a bit more different and we've all evolved away from it by equal amounts?  However, this is not the same as "did we evolve from the bonobo or from the common chimpanzee?".  The latter is likely to be a biologically meaningless question because they are our cousins and we are equally genetically separated from both of them.  (You could talk about degrees of relatedness if one lineage remained unchanged through time and spun off other lineages via critical mutations that establish separate subgroups, but you have no evidence for any lineage remaining unchanged here.)

 
Quote
The problem for me is that the common names now used to differentiate them are "chimp" and "bonobo". If I instead say "pygmy chimps" then very few would even know what I'm talking about.
 
The latter is simply not true.  I agree that it would be convenient to say chimps and bonobos to mean Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus, so that if one said "chimp" it would mean "not the bonobo".  However, unfortunately for you, words in common usage don't work solely according to your say-so: you can redefine a word for a specific use in your own publication, but that's the limit.  I agree that there is a push in some quarters to abandon "pygmy chimp", "gracile chimp",  (etc.) in favor of "bonobo" and that a good argument can be made for doing so: Wikipedia has been edited that way.  However, there is clear ongoing usage by common people and by specialists of "chimpanzee" to include the bonobo, and many experts are still using one or another of the "chimp" versions.  IUCN and WWF still use both names. The authoritative six-volume book "Mammals of Africa", published in 2013 lists the animal as "Pan paniscus, Gracile Chimpanzee (Bonobo, Pygmy Chimpanzee)".  It says, "The original common name was 'Pygmy Chimpanzee', but the term bonobo came into regular use after Heck (1939) reported what he mistakenly thought to be an indigenous term.  Some primatologists now prefer the name 'Gracile Chimpanzee' as this is the most common descriptive name for P. paniscus.  Debate continues over which of the several common names is most appropriate."


Quote
As in the theory: the very first "humans" are chromosomal Adam and Eve. Therefore: if the 2A+2B fusion exists then a specimen is human. It's that simple.

Your mess of pottage is still not a theory.  However, "human" is a term in need of clarification, and using chromosomal fusion to define humans is at least a clearly stated operational definition.  Unfortunately, it is unusable, given that (as far as I know, but as always correct me if I am wrong) we have no relevant data about which fossil Hominini lie on which side of that dividing line.

Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ominini offers:  
Quote
"The subtribe Hominina is the "human" branch; that is, it contains the genus Homo exclusively. Researchers proposed the taxon Hominini on the basis that the least similar species of a trichotomy should be separated from the other two. ......

A source of confusion in determining the exact age of the Pan–Homo split is evidence of a complex speciation process rather than a clean split between the two lineages. Different chromosomes appear to have split at different times, possibly over as much as a four-million-year period, indicating a long and drawn out speciation process with large-scale hybridization events between the two emerging lineages as late as 6.3 to 5.4 million years ago according to Patterson et al. (2006).

The assumption of late hybridization was in particular based on the similarity of the X chromosome in humans and chimpanzees, suggesting a divergence as late as some 4 million years ago. This conclusion was rejected as unwarranted by Wakeley (2008), who suggested alternative explanations, including selection pressure on the X chromosome in the populations ancestral to the chimpanzee–human last common ancestor (CHLCA).


Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......minidae says
Quote
A hominine is a member of the subfamily Homininae: gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans (excludes orangutans).
A hominin is a member of the subtribe Hominina of the tribe Hominini: that is, modern humans and their closest relatives after their split from chimpanzees.
A human is a member of the genus Homo, of which Homo sapiens is the only extant species, and within that Homo sapiens sapiens is the only surviving subspecies.


See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ncestor

Quote
But still, from what I can see the differences between bonobos and chimps are similar to chimps and gorillas.
Then you can't see much.  Gorillas are way more different from all chimps than bonobos are from the common chimp.  Hint: gorillas are in a different genus, look quite different, have significant differences in their skeletons, behave quite differently, and are more different genetically: study http://users.rcn.com/jkimbal....ids.jpg

               
Quote
After seeing the results it was clear that they were far from looking like cousins.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi....u....ult.jpg
So, which one is which, or are they both in the same species?

Bonobos and the common chimpanzee look very similar.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013.......ractive
They are cousins, and they are exactly equally genetically distant from us.  The question of which of them is a closer model for our ancestor is a good question, but the statement that we descended from one rather than the other is a wrong concept.  If you understood biology, you'd understand this, but even you should be able to grasp that your looking more like your cousin A than your cousin B does not make A more closely related to you.

                 
Quote
If people demand change then you must give them something that is scientifically rewarding to have changed. Else they will unknowingly make an even bigger mess of things. And you don't want that right?
 Science does not work that way.  If a change is merited, then science makes a change, but otherwise, it doesn't.  

                 
Quote
In our cultures the most generally accepted definition of them all starts with first humans, Adam and Eve. It's not a science based definition, but it's already there. The only thing that is needed to make it also a scientific concept is to find some truth to the story.
That's not how science works either.  As Chemicat said, dump the Jesus goggles.



http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images.....8c5.jpg


And here's how to model a brain usefully:
http://www.npr.org/section....heimers

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2016,18:35   

'Twas writ, above:  
Quote
And you still do not understand the word 'definition'.


DEFINITELY.

My 2c.

WHATTA HOOT!  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2016,00:40   

https://www.buzzfeed.com/sheeraf....-fake-n

Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 15 2016,05:52)
Let's clarify.  

   
Quote
   
Quote
[From me] You are in the position of arguing that one of your first cousins is more closely related to you than another of your first cousins.


[From Gary].......You are describing what I expected to find. After seeing the results it was clear that they were far from looking like cousins.

It doesn't work that way - they are both our cousins, they are equidistant from us. In the image below, the older girls are non-identical twins, and they are holding their younger sisters, who are also non-identical twins.
http://www.pregnancy-bliss.co.uk/TTTS.ht....TS.html

According to you, which of the sisters are more closely related?

The genomes in question are certainly NOT as similar as human "cousins". With bonobos and chimps being almost as genetically different from each other as they are to gorillas there is no doubt in my mind that you are stretching the definition of the word "cousins" to the point where now you might just as well throw in second cousins, sponges and turnips.

Your going on and on about how things are officially taxonomically classified is irrelevant to a discussion about a word that is not even used in official taxonomical classification. In this case it's what we the people want. So just be thankful the science world can easily adapt to the change.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2016,06:41   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2016,01:40)
...
Your going on and on about how things are officially taxonomically classified is irrelevant to a discussion about a word that is not even used in official taxonomical classification. In this case it's what we the people want. So just be thankful the science world can easily adapt to the change.

Once again, the point, you have missed it.

What do you suppose happens when science is driven by what "we, the people" want?
What kind of drugs are you on that make you hallucinate the absurdity that you represent either a collective of persons or a practitioner of science?

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2016,06:49   

Quote
With bonobos and chimps being almost as genetically different from each other as they are to gorillas

That is not true.  Once again, see http://users.rcn.com/jkimbal....ids.jpg



I am using "cousins" to provide you with an understandable metaphor.  Technically, Pan paniscus and Pan troglodytes are a sister group (in this case, sister species).  Together, they are our sister group.

   
Quote
In this case it's what we the people want.

That may matter politically, but it doesn't matter scientifically - that's not the way science works.

 
Quote
Your going on and on about how things are officially taxonomically classified is irrelevant to a discussion about a word that is not even used in official taxonomical classification.
 That is one of the most idiotic statements you have made on this thread, and that is quite an achievement.  YOU made claims about about relatedness and classification, and YOU dragged a poorly defined word into the topic (human).  YOU are the person ignoring pre-existing definitions (chimp, human), and debasing and misusing technical concepts.

Phylogeny, cladistics, systematics, and taxonomy are the branches of science concerned with relatedness and classification and their methods, so any discussion in these areas necessarily goes into those sorts of details.  

All you've done here is deliver ignorant statements in blissful yet assertive ignorance.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2016,09:46   

Quote
Your going on and on about how things are officially taxonomically classified is irrelevant to a discussion about a word that is not even used in official taxonomical classification. In this case it's what we the people want. So just be thankful the science world can easily adapt to the change.


Gaulin, this quote demonstrates why what you do is not science, is not even a cousin of science and is now extinct.

Taxonomy attempts to classify living creatures and how they relate to each other. It is way too technical for someone like you without the necessary training and comprehension. As is most science.

This lack is further demonstrated with your conflation of chemical species with living species. Again you cannot understand the different usage of the same word.

Science is not a 'we the people' consensus but an evidence and testability driven basis for explaining the real world and the facts that already exist. It is not put to a popular vote and never will be. Before you continue with your drivel I suggest you try an on-line course in basic science with a second in English grammar. Then you will not only see how wrong you are but how to correct your multiple errors.

In the years you have been trolling the internet with your rubbish you could have learnt about science and, even as an amateur, made a contribution to our knowledge. Have you heard the phrase 'citizen science'?

Until you ditch your religious convictions or at least remove them from consideration within your "theory" you will contribute nothing  to science and society.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2016,16:33   

Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 16 2016,06:49)
   
Quote
With bonobos and chimps being almost as genetically different from each other as they are to gorillas

That is not true.  Once again, see http://users.rcn.com/jkimbal....ids.jpg


I am using "cousins" to provide you with an understandable metaphor.  Technically, Pan paniscus and Pan troglodytes are a sister group (in this case, sister species).  Together, they are our sister group.

The illustration does not do justice to what I'm seeing like this in the TAT/ATA (and other) content.


  sites.google.com/site/digitalchromosomebanding/home/Chr2A-TAT.png

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2016,17:42   

Prufer et al., 28 June 2012, The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes
Nature, 486: 527–531.
http://www.nature.com/nature.....28.html

Their Figure 2 is very interesting:
http://www.nature.com/nature.....F2.html
That diagram shows that by one particular measure, humans are genetically very similar to both P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, and are about equally distant from both, and that P.p. and P.t. are extremely similar to each other.

Their Figure 3
http://www.nature.com/nature.....F3.html
infers a separation time between the human and Pan lineages at 4.5 m.y. and a separation between Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus at about 1 m.y. ago.

 
Quote
comparison of a small number of autosomal DNA sequences has shown that bonobo DNA sequences often fall within the variation of chimpanzees.


 
Quote
On average, the two alleles in single-copy, autosomal regions in the Ulindi [bonobo] genome are approximately 99.9% identical to each other, 99.6% identical to corresponding sequences in the chimpanzee genome and 98.7% identical to corresponding sequences in the human genome.

So bonobos are very close to common chimps and less close to modern humans.

Beyond that, there are interesting complications. A small % of the human genome is more similar to common chimps than to bonobos, and a nearly identical small  % is more similar to bonobos than to common chimps:

 
Quote
This showed that 1.6% of the human genome is more closely related to the bonobo genome than to the chimpanzee genome, and that 1.7% of the human genome is more closely related to the chimpanzee than to the bonobo genome .....
.......
We identified 991 integrations of transposons absent from the orang-utan genome but present in two of the three species bonobo, chimpanzee and human. Of these, 27 are shared between the bonobo and human genomes but are absent from the chimpanzee genome, and 30 are shared between the chimpanzee and human genomes but are absent from the bonobo genome.......

We identified 18 such amino-acid substitutions shared between humans and bonobos and 18 shared between chimpanzees and humans


How Science sums up the Prufer study:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news....latives
Quote
When the Max Planck scientists compared the bonobo genome directly with that of chimps and humans, however, they found that a small bit of our DNA, about 1.6%, is shared with only the bonobo, but not chimpanzees. And we share about the same amount of our DNA with only chimps, but not bonobos. These differences suggest that the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps more than 4 million years ago, the common ancestor of bonobos and chimps retained this diversity until their population completely split into two groups 1 million years ago. The groups that evolved into bonobos, chimps, and humans all retained slightly different subsets of this ancestral population's diverse gene pool—and those differences now offer clues today to the size and range of diversity in that ancestral group.



From Scientific American, 2014
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article....-genome
 
Quote
chimps and bonobos in particular take pride of place as our nearest living relatives, sharing approximately 99 percent of our DNA, with gorillas trailing at 98 percent.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2016,18:49   

Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 17 2016,17:42)
Prufer et al., 28 June 2012,
.....

Beyond that, there are interesting complications. A small % of the human genome is more similar to common chimps than to bonobos, and a nearly identical small  % is more similar to bonobos than to common chimps:

     
Quote
This showed that 1.6% of the human genome is more closely related to the bonobo genome than to the chimpanzee genome, and that 1.7% of the human genome is more closely related to the chimpanzee than to the bonobo genome .....
.......
We identified 991 integrations of transposons absent from the orang-utan genome but present in two of the three species bonobo, chimpanzee and human. Of these, 27 are shared between the bonobo and human genomes but are absent from the chimpanzee genome, and 30 are shared between the chimpanzee and human genomes but are absent from the bonobo genome.......

We identified 18 such amino-acid substitutions shared between humans and bonobos and 18 shared between chimpanzees and humans


How Science sums up the Prufer study:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news.......latives
   
Quote
When the Max Planck scientists compared the bonobo genome directly with that of chimps and humans, however, they found that a small bit of our DNA, about 1.6%, is shared with only the bonobo, but not chimpanzees. And we share about the same amount of our DNA with only chimps, but not bonobos. These differences suggest that the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps more than 4 million years ago, the common ancestor of bonobos and chimps retained this diversity until their population completely split into two groups 1 million years ago. The groups that evolved into bonobos, chimps, and humans all retained slightly different subsets of this ancestral population's diverse gene pool—and those differences now offer clues today to the size and range of diversity in that ancestral group.


From Scientific American, 2014
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article....-genome
       
Quote
chimps and bonobos in particular take pride of place as our nearest living relatives, sharing approximately 99 percent of our DNA, with gorillas trailing at 98 percent.


That's more like it. You do need much more than that simple illustration to show what went where.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 578 579 580 581 582 [583] 584 585 586 587 588 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]