Re: Common ancestor between man and ape

On 7 May 2007 09:13:55 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Lorentz <drosen0000@xxxxxxxxx>:

Ummm...it's a *definition*; definitions don't require
testing, only acceptance as useful by others in the same
field. Would you assert that the definition of any term
requires testing, rather than acceptance by the
professionals using the term, before being accepted? Seems a
bit cumbersome to me...

Slight correction. Change in allelle frequencies is not the
definition of evolution. It is only a part of evolution. Darwin
himself didn't use the phrase, as he didn't know about allelles. the
one most studied in what we call the grand synthesis. But his is not
the only variation around.

Granted; I was commenting on his idea that definitions were
subject to the same requirements as hypotheses and didn't
fully discuss his statement.

As an example, the human genome shows quite a few transpositions
and at least two chromosome fusions. When the mutations that caused
these occurred, there was probably not an immediate change in allelle
frequencies. The Robertson fusion is most famous, because it was
probably what changed the number of chromosome pairs from 24 as in a
"common ancestor" to 23 in human beings. I mean, of course, a common
ancestor between human beings and chimpanzees. Of course, the
Robertson fusion could have occurred a couple of generations before
the most recent "common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans."
Slightly unwieldly, but so much clearer. "Common ancestor between
chimpanzees and humans" is so much clearer than "common ancestor
between apes and humans." I notice that still leaves an ambiguity. Are
we talking about the most recent "common ancestor" or an earlier
"common ancestor." There is probably a theropod "common ancestor" who
was stomping around in the Permian era. The theropod ancestor probably
didn't even say "bogum."

"Gronk"; I have it on excellent authority. ;-)
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More Creationist Claims
    ... provirus in chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, but not humans." ... If the common ancestor of all three lineages was polymorphic for the trait then as the two branching points are so close together it could have remained polymorphic in the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans, and subsequently fixed in the gorilla and chimpanzee lineages and lost in the human lineage. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... Robertson fusion could have occurred a couple of generations before ... the most recent "common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans." ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... only acceptance as useful by others in the same ... ancestor between human beings and chimpanzees. ... Robertson fusion could have occurred a couple of generations before ... the most recent "common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans." ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: New falsifiable proposal/prediction of design
    ... Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees; ... The common ancestor no longer exists. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: New falsifiable proposal/prediction of design
    ... > Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees; ... The common ancestor no longer exists. ... that species either adapt to novel conditions and so do not challenge their ...
    (talk.origins)