Human evolution Intelligent Design News

But why subscribe to New Scientist if they don’t know either?

Spread the love

New Scientist keeps wanting me (O’Leary for News) to pay to read an article advertised as follows:

Our last common ancestors

It’s the original “missing link”: the extinct ape that is the common ancestor of chimps and humans.

But we still don’t know what it looked like, or indeed, whether we can be sure there was a single ancestor.

We all have our uncertainties, but we don’t usually expect people to pay to share them.
File:A small cup of coffee.JPG
From what one can tell, human evolution studies are in massive flux today, principally owing to more actual information.
Ice Cream / Treat Tubs - Princess Party
Couple recent stories:

“Extinct” human group Denisovans’ genes found in Oceania peoples The way the article is written, the authors seem to want to advance the idea that all these groups were different “species” despite them not seeming to know it themselves.

and

But are human groups “extinct” if their genes live on in us?

Stay tuned.

3 Replies to “But why subscribe to New Scientist if they don’t know either?

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Just how are we related to our chimp cousins? 16 March 2016
    It’s the original missing link: the extinct ape that is the common ancestor of chimps and humans. But we still don’t know what it looked like
    Excerpt: Astonishing fossils are found every year, but the original “missing link” remains as hopelessly elusive as ever. Where is the last common ancestor of humans and chimps? “I would love to know,” says Sergio Almécija of the George Washington University in Washington DC. “That question is keeping me awake at night.”
    On the face of it, there is good reason to think that the last creature from which both humans and chimps – our closest cousins – can claim descent might eventually be found. After all, we have a pretty good idea when and where it was dragging its knuckles, or swinging through the trees. “It is universally accepted that the last common ancestor of chimps and humans lived in Africa, probably around 7 million years ago,” says David Alba of the Catalan Institute of Palaeontology in Barcelona, Spain.
    The bad news is that any evidence of this animal will be very, very hard to find. After decades of searching we have a reasonably rich collection of fossils of our hominin ancestors, stretching back 4 million years. But fossil evidence of anything earlier than that would barely fill a couple of shoe boxes.
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2081012-just-how-are-we-related-to-our-chimp-cousins/

    reminded me of this bit from Phillip Johnson:

    “What I saw about the fossil record again,, was that Gould and Eldridge were experts in the area where the animal fossil record is most complete. That is marine invertebrates.,, And the reason for this is that when,, a bird, or a human, or an ape, or a wolf, or whatever, dies,, normally it does not get fossilized. It decays in the open, or is eaten by scavengers. Things get fossilized when they get covered over quickly with sediments so that they are protected from this natural destructive process. So if you want to be a fossil, the way to go about it is to live in the shallow seas, where you get covered over by sediments when you die,,. Most of the animal fossils are of that kind and it is in that area where the fossil record is most complete. That there is a consistent pattern.,, I mean there is evolution in the sense of variation, just like the peppered moth example. Things do vary, but they vary within the type. The new types appear suddenly, fully formed, without an evolutionary history and then they stay fundamentally stable with (cyclical) variation after their sudden appearance, and stasis (according) to the empirical observations made by Gould and Eldridge. Well now you see, I was aware of a number of examples of where evolutionary intermediates were cited. This was brought up as soon as people began to make the connection and question the (Darwinian) profession about their theory in light of the controversy. But the examples of claimed evolutionary transitionals, oddly enough, come from the area of the fossil record where fossilization is rarest. Where it is least likely to happen.,,,
    One of things that amused me is that there are so many fossil candidates for human ancestorship, and so very few fossils that are candidates for the great apes.,, There should be just as many. But why not? Any economist can give you the answer to that. Human ancestors have a great American value and so they are produced at a much greater rate.,,
    These also were grounds to be suspicious of what was going on,,,
    ,,,if the problem is the greatest where the fossil record is most complete and if the confirming examples are found where fossils are rarest, that doesn’t sound like it could be the explanation.”
    – Phillip Johnson – April 2012 – audio/video 15:05 minute mark to 19:15 minute mark
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....age#t=903s

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    We all have our uncertainties, but we don’t usually expect people to pay to share them.

    You clearly don’t know many psychiatrists.

  3. 3
    Barry Desborough says:

    Proof of common descent. http://barryhisblog.blogspot.f.....ently.html

Leave a Reply