Okay, I'm giving Ant a yellow card . . .



Also, giving the Devil his due, these were some interesting questions. Let's clear the slate and move on.

correct Johnson, but I admit that whilst it was not an attack, I was probing with that sentence in bold in the sideline topic that was iterated with MovieNerd and others, too before. I was not expecting a THIS obvious and vehement (over)reaction, and such immediate self-labelling - but it decreased the thread's quality - apologies, I just had to again re-assure at least myself by seeing the reaction that I am not imagining what I upheld as being the core pattern of the observed behaviour...

geo wrote:Okay, I'm giving Ant a yellow card . . .



Also, giving the Devil his due, these were some interesting questions. Let's clear the slate and move on.

Yes, let's clear the slate. I've had my fill of getting angry.

ant wrote:No need to fall back on that weak crap when whats simply happening is a request for theory vs hypothetical assumptive clarification.

Is your motive to mine the collective knowledge of this group for an honest answer for your question? Do you really want to know what theories or hypotheses exist that would clarify where you lack understanding? That would be an honorable motive.

There is an alternative motive, that you're looking for holes in the theory of evolution, or of the participants understanding of evolution. This seems to be your motive. If it is, then many of the posts lehelvandor has made answer your remarks. You should re-read them.

Interbane wrote:

ant wrote:No need to fall back on that weak crap when whats simply happening is a request for theory vs hypothetical assumptive clarification.

Is your motive to mine the collective knowledge of this group for an honest answer for your question? Do you really want to know what theories or hypotheses exist that would clarify where you lack understanding? That would be an honorable motive.

There is an alternative motive, that you're looking for holes in the theory of evolution, or of the participants understanding of evolution. This seems to be your motive. If it is, then many of the posts lehelvandor has made answer your remarks. You should re-read them.

Of course he didn't even read them in the first place. His only interest lies in pissing people off.

lehelvandor wrote:On point (4): If looking specifically at the so-called common ancestor and "us", the so-to-speak tangible / observable bridge is the uncanningly precise fusion of chromosome 2, to be rigorous (in passing, may be called the 24->23 fusion but that is referring to the shrinking in the number, not the actual ordinal). But of course that, in another dimension, brings us to what was the intelligence level of this ancestor where things have gone on 2 different paths.
On clothing and hair especially (of course no evidence in my pocket about what point in time they started wearing things, if they needed to, so oversimplified the environmental/habitat factor to just an extreme chilly season in ice age so less things to type):
Bodmer & Pagel in England said something interesting, losing or diminishing body hair helped with eliminating deadly diseases spread by parasites, and this presented advantage in natural selection.
Then in terms of timing, the body lice (clothing helps it big time) was shown to be a very recent beast (~40000-50000 years ago), genetic sequencing demonstrating its evolution from the head lice that is much more ancient.
So the timing of when we started wearing clothes could be around that time, especially considering that humans left Africa around that time - so clothing could be a biggie in helping them to venture out...
Coupled with this, ~1.2 million years ago the specific gene that controls skin colour had its last big mutation that made its variant for dark skin colour dominate completely. In Africa, this was crucial for survival, other and could mean that we had fur loss before that, so we probably enjoyed nudism for a very long time (more than 1million years - yikes ).

Let's imagine that my questions are strictly for presentation for laymen.
Say, these laymen are part of a jury, and that it's important we break down what is in question for the purpose of clarity for the non specialist.

Scientific jargon, or any jargon for that matter, related to highly specialized fields is often not translatable to the layman unless technical terms are clarified and reduced to a language that adds meaning (visual meaning is best) to what said term(s) attempt to convey.

Chris introduced a great idea - perhaps we should one day agree on a book that explains evolution well enough for everyone to participate. So, I think what I'm suggesting above is reasonable.

I don't know if you're a scientist. I'm certainly not.
I've always found it natural to break things down to simplest terms to arrive at an understanding that is satisfactory and suitable, until more information is available.

Having said that, here once again are my reasons for participation in this thread:


1) at what point does theory begin to lose its scientific meaning because of assumptive auxiliary hypotheses (evolution as it specifically relates homo sapien)

2) how many hypotheses are there in the theory we are ranting on about

3) What is the amount of evidence missing and what are the assumptive hypotheses currently in place filling our evidence gaps.

4) How much narrative explanation (as opposed to empirical explanation) is there that is currently in place to get from simple life to complex "intelligent" life.



If you wish to add your personal philosophy and suspicions, that is up to you. However, they are irrelevant to what I am attempting here. You can either choose to believe that, or not. That will be entirely your prerogative.
It will also be an opinion that I am not interested in here.

If you wish to advance your opinions about motive instead of engaging the questions, much like Johnson is, then simply do not answer them. Ignore the questions and leave them open.

There are a lot of open questions in relation to this discussion, whether you are comfortable with that fact or not.
That is for you to deal with psychologically as best you can.

I will ask more questions based on your response above.

Thanks

Ps

I will not be responding to what someone opinion is about what I have said here.

Thanks again.

L wrote:
If looking specifically at the so-called common ancestor and "us", the so-to-speak tangible / observable bridge is the uncanningly precise fusion of chromosome 2, to be rigorous (in passing, may be called the 24->23 fusion but that is referring to the shrinking in the number, not the actual ordinal).

How has this "observable bridge" been tested for observational verification?
Did humans once have 24 chromosomes? what empirical evidence is there for humans having 24?

There is an inference in place that is acting as evidence that humans had 24 C's in the past. Does it necessarily follow without evidence, or the ability of testing, that Chrom 2 fused occurred in some pre-homo sapien past?
Why would that have been an adaptation necessity for the species?


L wrote:

On clothing and hair especially (of course no evidence in my pocket about what point in time they started wearing things, if they needed to, so oversimplified the environmental/habitat factor to just an extreme chilly season in ice age so less things to type):
Bodmer & Pagel in England said something interesting, losing or diminishing body hair helped with eliminating deadly diseases spread by parasites, and this presented advantage in natural selection.
Then in terms of timing, the body lice (clothing helps it big time) was shown to be a very recent beast (~40000-50000 years ago), genetic sequencing demonstrating its evolution from the head lice that is much more ancient.
So the timing of when we started wearing clothes could be around that time, especially considering that humans left Africa around that time - so clothing could be a biggie in helping them to venture out...

Once again, is there any empirical evidence that hominids wore clothing? Yes or No?
What would have been a greater environmental threat to the survival, hair lice or adverse weather conditions? One hominid could easily pick lice off his fellow hominid, but protection from adverse weather is an entirely different matter.
Also, why havent other mammals shed hair so they won't be subjected to lice?

Evidence that lice problems is the answer?
Have we observed that as true with other primates?
Are there any indications that certain primates are beginning to lose hair?


How much testability is actual in all of your claims here?
Testability is still vital to theory generation. Is it NOT???

Thanks, L

Chromosomes and the mentioned fusion: this is based on genetic evidence, without going into e.g. how mytocondrian DNA analysis is done etc., an overview is on wiki, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29

Lice, weather, etc.: both the linked article I found later (where I recommended its 2nd page especially) to summarise it shortly, and my summary of summary describes it, and the hypotheses vs. available evidence - and how latter (described) indirect evidence fits with timeline that comes from another scientific area. It also talks about the quantifiable threat to e.g. typhoid and about climate aspects incl. its puzzles, which is based on observation and statistics as quoted there.

Why other mammals didn't shed hair? Very good question - have they had the same mutation to the specific gene that regulated skin colour? have they gone through same environmental and other factors that humans did? have they had same exposure to a number of factors that more intelligent mammals could avoid? etc. Whilst, incl. above mentioned summary linked earlier, discuss a number of definites and maybes, *logically* the question is analogue to (simplifying again here) "if humans lost their tails, why other mammals didn't" --> hence there must be something quite bizarre about humans, which is not explained at all by science.

On the (4) points, very comfortably about open questions , it was point by point detailed earlier - including the fact that the questions are (perhaps) unintentionally vague and logically problematic - because even the semantics are wide open whilst they chase specifics. As demonstrated few days ago, and made specific associations between the analogy and points (2)(3) for example, even with an analogy to make the point obvious, the quantification of missing puzzle bits and counting hypotheses - we want percentage ratio? and a list of hypotheses? or just copy the entirety of existing *methodical* reasoning and present/absent evidence here to the forum?

And how much evidence is to "my" claims? If you looked incl. the summary article link from a number of studies, analyses and hypotheses in relation to those, then the question is rhetorical (and wrong in attributing those to me, but thanks, I wish I had discovered those things).

As someone once said, in order to ask a good question you have to know a lot about the subject. But the chase for clarity then has to demonstrate the integration of previously presented information and it has to evolve, instead of moving round in circles, pretending despite previous ample inter-connected answers that those answers never existed or don't apply.

Regarding the description of evolution in layman's terms, it is a good idea indeed, but not sure how it would be done - the slight problem is that at least it needs the firm grasp on rational methods, then perhaps some science can be reduced to "street talk"... perhaps, not sure, never considered it as it is a bit daunting.

L wrote:
Chromosomes and the mentioned fusion: this is based on genetic evidence, without going into e.g. how mytocondrian DNA analysis is done etc., an overview is on wiki, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29

Lice, weather, etc.: both the linked article I found later (where I recommended its 2nd page especially) to summarise it shortly, and my summary of summary describes it, and the hypotheses vs. available evidence - and how latter (described) indirect evidence fits with timeline that comes from another scientific area. It also talks about the quantifiable threat to e.g. typhoid and about climate aspects incl. its puzzles, which is based on observation and statistics as quoted there.

Just a quick comment; indirect evidence is circumstantial. Direct evidence is actual evidence.
Circumstantial evidence does not fit a timeline the way direct evidence does.
If you say it does, then you are essentially saying evidence means the same thing at all times and at any degree.
It does not. there are varying degrees of evidence.
I am glad you referred to it as 'Indirect evidence" Big difference there.

Humans have 46 C's. Our closest relatives have 48.
What is the scientific explanation for why the missing 2 have vanished without a trace.
Or have they? I honestly do not know.

Is the difference in the amount of C's in humans and chimps minor enough that we can say unequivocally they are our direct decedents, or is it both minor AND substantial because of the enormous differences between humans and chimps (ie we can do algebra, they can't)?
If there are more substantial differences than incidental ones aren't we at risk of committing a composition fallacy?

How do we know what is quantifiable about weather from over 100 thousands years ago when sometimes our current weather models are noticeably inaccurate from 10 years ago?
What weather maps from 100K ago are you referencing as evidence and how have they been verified?
Are you just going to say "statistics" and be done with it?

L wrote:

Why other mammals didn't shed hair? Very good question - have they had the same mutation to the specific gene that regulated skin colour? have they gone through same environmental and other factors that humans did? have they had same exposure to a number of factors that more intelligent mammals could avoid? etc. Whilst, incl. above mentioned summary linked earlier, discuss a number of definites and maybes, *logically* the question is analogue to (simplifying again here) "if humans lost their tails, why other mammals didn't" --> hence there must be something quite bizarre about humans, which is not explained at all by science.

So I am gathering from the above statement:

1) there is no direct evidence hominids wore clothing (as you had previously claimed they did)

2) there is no evidence that lice/hygiene issues was the reason humans lost hair.

3) We do not know why our closest ancestors are doing fine with hair. If we are essentially just good looking chimps that wear clothes and have math degrees, we should still be covered with hair because our nearest and dearest cousins are doing just fine with it. Maybe even at times better because they are likely to survive exposed to the elements longer than we would be able to.

Scientific prediction - chimps should be losing their hair sometime soon - just like their favorite relatives have.

What exactly are we after here?

Direct and indirect evidence, each with its particularities, has been used and referred to as needed.

Weather? 1. The statistics were about the mentioned article (to just ref one thing) quantitative reference of parasite-induced deaths; 2. on the entirely other matter of climate, one does not deduce climate based on current meteo models - it would be a very long list to enumerate everything from pollen evidence to gas content trapped in solids to the flora and fauna fossils (even remarkable things like the thickness of the rings in trees, that indicate temperature conditions) to geophysical evidence etc. But as said, my ref to stats on a particular aspect of a particular subject in an article summary was not weather-related.

Chromosomes: as many times mentioned by me, and also easily googlable: the evidence is not number of C's. IT is the precise exact fusion observed in the DNA sequence, and its significance in terms of the common ancestry - as I also mentioned many times, and referred to funnier misinterpretations of the evidence of the DNA sequence fused precisely, many jump on chromosome numbers to make inferences about levels of complexity in terms of brain functions / intelligence.

Clothing: I stated this, and re-re-re-stated N times, it was first mentioned as an example and specific in e.g. ice age period, to make the point of habitat factors that one species was exposed to and other could protect itself from. I stated than and several times after, this was not a "claim" about any "direct evidence" about hominids across 1.7 millions years... check the sentences word by word, there was and is not such statement in that context. I can't repeat this more, if you keep losing context completely despite the many re-re-stating of both context and the particular "claim". Then I moved on to the larger timeline, the timelines I mentioned and later pointed to the entire story via a handy summary article that saves many pages.

On lice and above (1)(2): if you read the article, too, first then the logical inferences and their direction would be clear. After that comes the scientific aspect. On the latter, there is direct evidence on the mutations that were mentioned, from the point where a lice species appears that can only exist with clothing as on the non-furry skin they could not and did not exist, see timeline, too. There is direct evidence on when the fur was lost and what precise gene made what mutation in Africa. There is direct evidence on what it did in other geographic areas, and by just mere logic considering that gene's role, it can be seen how its variations had more "freedom" in areas where those variations did not kill the individuals.

Thefore, again and again, and I am doing this the last time in circles: nobody said that there was (even see the article unless you wish to read much much more) direct evidence on the hygiene issues being THE reason for fur loss, nor for the clothing in the entire timeline talked about.

(3) A->B does not mean B->A is true. Again, can we get on top of (forget science) logic laws?

As stated many times, are we comparing like with like? Did chimps, after the forking from our common ancestor, evolve in same ways to end up in similar environmental factors and minor "crutches" that came from others' higher intelligence?
Was fur necessary to humans vs. fur being necessary to chimps? See heat transmission vs. where they live to this day, and where hominids moved to and what problems that posed immediately in terms of their exposure.

So how exactly did you predict that chimps will lose hair? why would they? are they even as we speak subject to same factors that we are, furthermore, to the same factors that hominids exposed themselves as soon as they moved to somewhere troublesome with its whole new sets of environmental factors?

Again, and this is not meant as any "attack" of any kind, but BEFORE we discuss scientific aspects, we need to be in firm grasp of logic and then how it is applied to the elements we talk about later.

And off to the sublime british motorways now to enjoy their chaos. And the link again, and straight to 2nd page, but it is helpful if read from start - but 2nd page, as stated back then, expand on a number of points done 2 days ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/19/scien ... gewanted=2