ps418

You are again quite wrong. I said that Proconsul is not a homonid, not that it was not a homonoid. Homonid and HOMONOID are not synonymous. Please read carefully.

You should have asked this crucial question before you asserted, wrongly, that I was incorrect, dont you think? Homonids include Kenyapithecus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, and Homo. See <a href="http://www.xrefer.com/entry/506028" target="_blank">xrefer - homonid</a>

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

ps418 : Yes, but Proconsul is neither a human nor a homonid, which is what Ohwilleke was referring to. The earliest known fossil homonids are ~5-6 million years old.

I was referring to "earliest" human ancestors. I never said Proconsul is a hominid. Ohwilleke used the words "pre-human hominids" which would mean pre-hominids (since as I already pointed out, only Homo Sapiens belongs to the family Hominidae).

ps418 : You should have asked this crucial question before you asserted, wrongly, that I was incorrect, dont you think? Homonids include Kenyapithecus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, and Homo. See xrefer - homonid

I searched for homonid at your site and I got:
Next time give a workable link please.
Provide a site that uses homonid as a current classification term because I can't find any.

ps418

You've got it wrong again. "Prehuman hominid" as used by Ohwilleke does not mean "prehominid." By 'human,' most people mean either H. sapiens or at least the genus Homo. Hominidae on the other hand includes many "pre-human" species, such as Australopithecus afarensis. A. afarensis is thus a pre-human hominid, but not a prehomonid, as are all the other hominids that appeared before the first members of the genus Homo. H. sapiens happens to be the only living hominid, of course.

I provided a working link the first time. I checked it on both my computer and the computer at the library. Therefore, the problem is either with your computer, or its user. But, I'll make it even easier on you by cutting and pasting the text:

xrefer - hominid
<a href="http://www.xrefer.com/entry/506028" target="_blank">http://www.xrefer.com/entry/506028</a>

And here is a defition of Hominidae:

xrefer- Hominidae
<a href="http://www.xrefer.com/entry/615269" target="_blank">http://www.xrefer.com/entry/615269</a>

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

Jesse

Intensity:
By earliest human ancestor, I meant the one group of species that hominids (hominids being earliest humans in any case, the only memeber of the family hominidae is Homo Sapiens) evolved from.

As Patrick pointed out, Homo sapiens are not most certainly not the only member of hominidae--the group also includes other members of the "Homo" genus like Homo habilis and Homo erectus, as well as other genera like Australopithecus.

What do you mean the "one group of species" that hominids evolved from? The one genus that the first hominid evolved from? The one family? The one order? And on what basis do you make this decision?

Intensity:
The earlist ancestor of humans can't be human unless you beleive humans evolved from humans. If I am wrong on this, then I will let the issue rest.

No, I thought you could have been talking about the earliest member of the hominid family. Your terminology still seems odd to me--for me "earliest human ancestor" should mean the earliest ancestor, period (some kind of single-celled organism living billions of years ago I suppose), it shouldn't arbitrarily mean "the earliest member of the superfamily that includes humans." Again, why superfamily? Why not the earliest member of the order which includes humans (primates) or the family (hominids) or even the genus (Homo)?

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: Jesse ]</p>

atrahasis

Some pop cons please... This is going to be interesting....

On this subject, i know very little so at the end of the day, i will at least have learnt something from you guys...

--Thank you and keep it up---

The wise teaching the mystery to the wise

Ted Hoffman

ps418: You've got it wrong again. "Prehuman hominid" as used by Ohwilleke does not mean "prehominid." By 'human,' most people mean either H. sapiens or at least the genus Homo. Hominidae on the other hand includes many "pre-human" species, such as Australopithecus afarensis. A. afarensis is thus a pre-human hominid, but not a prehomonid, as are all the other hominids that appeared before the first members of the genus Homo. H. sapiens happens to be the only living hominid, of course.

Intensity: This is absolute hokum. There is no such term as "pre-human hominid", hominid is human (australopithecus afarensis is what homo sapiens [ie human] was at his early evolutionary stage) the term pre human hominid is a tautology its equivalent to "pre human human".
Thats why I condensed it to pre-hominid.
From Talkorigins.org:
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html" target="_blank">Check here for the talkorigins definition on Hominid</a>

Intensity And for the record, there is nothing you have posted that demonstrates I have got anything wrong. Talk is cheap.

ps418: I provided a working link the first time. I checked it on both my computer and the computer at the library. Therefore, the problem is either with your computer, or its user. But, I'll make it even easier on you by cutting and pasting the text:

xrefer - hominid
<a href="http://www.xrefer.com/entry/506028" target="_blank">http://www.xrefer.com/entry/506028</a>

Intensity: Either your memory is very short, or you are being dishonest. This is what you posted earlier:

Intensity That post indicates that I will get a reference for homonid at that link, NOT hominid and NOT hominidae. I don't appreciate your devious debating tactics and I wonder why you find it necessary to be so evasive.

None of your quotes you have provided have the term Homonid, so I wonder what kind of taxonomy you were using.

Jesse: What do you mean the "one group of species" that hominids evolved from? The one genus that the first hominid evolved from? The one family? The one order? And on what basis do you make this decision?

Intensity Jesus, Jesse, I provided a link and explained that hominoids is a superfamily which is divided into three families:[list][*]Hylobatidae (gibbons);[*]Pongidae (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos); and[*]Hominidae (humans). [/b]

I have not made any decision, I am referring to known taxonomical classifications. It is said hominoids represent the common ancestry we have with apes. The common example of a hominoid is Proconsul.
This table shows members of the super family Homonidae


Jesse :Your terminology still seems odd to me--for me "earliest human ancestor" should mean the earliest ancestor, period (some kind of single-celled organism living billions of years ago I suppose), it shouldn't arbitrarily mean "the earliest member of the superfamily that includes humans." .

Intensity It's not arbitrary. The earliest ancestor would be too broad to have any meaning in the context of our discussion.

Jesse Again, why superfamily? Why not the earliest member of the order which includes humans (primates) or the family (hominids) or even the genus (Homo)?

Intensity Its both. Superfamily is the taxonomical application of the term (hominoid) while at the same time, there is the ancestral usage of the term (unless we can wave away proconsul).

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Jesse

Jesse: What do you mean the "one group of species" that hominids evolved from? The one genus that the first hominid evolved from? The one family? The one order? And on what basis do you make this decision?

Intensity Jesus, Jesse, I provided a link and explained that hominoids is a superfamily which is divided into three families

Uh, yes, I already knew this. Too bad it has nothing to do with my question, which is what you meant by "the one group of species that humans evolved from." Why do you consider the superfamily hominoids the "one group" that we evolved from? I could just as easily say the order primates is "the one group of species that humans evolved from" or the family hominidae is "the one group that humans evolved from" (since the earliest hominids are not usually referred to as 'humans'). Please explain why "group"=superfamily in your lingo.

Intensity:
I have not made any decision, I am referring to known taxonomical classifications. It is said hominoids represent the common ancestry we have with apes. The common example of a hominoid is Proconsul.

Yes, the earliest hominoids like proconsul would have been the common ancestors of humans and apes. Likewise, the earliest primates would have been common ancestors of humans, apes, and monkeys. But so what? How does this answer the question of why the earliest hominoids should be referred to as the "earliest human ancestors" instead of the earliest hominids or the earliest primates? Still seems arbitrary to me.

Jesse Again, why superfamily? Why not the earliest member of the order which includes humans (primates) or the family (hominids) or even the genus (Homo)?

Intensity
Its both. Superfamily is the taxonomical application of the term (hominoid) while at the same time, there is the ancestral usage of the term (unless we can wave away proconsul).

You missed the point of my question. I know perfectly well that hominoid is the superfamily that humans are classified into, but I'm asking why by "earliest human ancestor" you mean the earliest member of our superfamily (hominoid) as opposed to the earliest member of our family (hominids) or the earliest member of our order (primates) or even class (mammals). Why superfamily? If I said the "earliest human ancestor" was the first hominid or the first primate, why would my choice make less sense than your choice of the first (or one of the first, anyway) hominoid?

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Jesse ]</p>

ps418

Intensity, I assumed, apparently wrongly, that you would have the common sense to understand that I had misspelled hominid as homonid. After all, the link I supplied was to the entry hominid, not homonid. That you intepret my remarks above as "evasive" is only further evidence of your ignorance in these matters. So, just so that we are clear on this, wherever I wrote homonid, mentally replace it with hominid, and your misunderstanding should be all cleared up.

Patrick

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Jesse Why do you consider the superfamily hominoids the "one group" that we evolved from

Because beyond hominoids, we cant really know whether we are "looking at" a cat or a man. (I haven't checked this though).
Secondly, because hominoids (the most common one being proconsul) represent the oldest fossil evidence that archaeology has come up with in the study of human evolotion.

Jesse Please explain why "group"=superfamily in your lingo.
Group is NOT equivalent to superfamily in my lingo. I was speaking informally. I have already explained what Hominoids means to me. I can't see why you are being argumentative.

Jesse How does this answer the question of why the earliest hominoids should be referred to as the "earliest human ancestors" instead of the earliest hominids or the earliest primates? Still seems arbitrary to me.

I don't think there exists such a term as "earliest hominoids". Hominoids should be referred to as the earliest human ancestors because when we retrograde further, things become hazy and we are not capable of differentiating human ancestors from cheetah ancestors and so on.
"Earliest hominids" is fine by me because humans are hominids. But earliest hominids are not necessarily earliest hominid ancestors.

Why not "earliest primates"? well because "primates" is a wide term that is inclusive of members of different species. By earliest humans, we are tracing back a lineage from a particular point (humans). Earliest primates makes the term less meaningful.

Jesse: Likewise, the earliest primates would have been common ancestors of humans, apes, and monkeys
Except we don't call them earliest primates.

Jesse But so what? How does this answer the question of why the earliest hominoids should be referred to as the "earliest human ancestors" instead of the earliest hominids or the earliest primates? Still seems arbitrary to me.

Another strawman? I never said "the earliest hominoids should be referred to as the "earliest human ancestors" instead of the earliest hominids ..."

Look Jesse, I used an expression. I explained what I meant by it. You disagree, fine. You want to call the "earliest human ancestors" apes? That is fine. I don't have to use your terminology. You don't have to use mine okay?

Hominoid is both a superfamily and a genus. Thats the crux of the matter.

In Taxonomy, its a superfamily (a grouping term). Based on archaeology, hominoids once existed and an example is Proconsul africanus.

Once you understand this, you will relax.
<a href="http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Hominidae&contgroup=Catarrhini" target="_blank">This page</a> has a "tree of life" shows why hominoids are the earliest known human ancestors.

ps418 Intensity, I assumed, apparently wrongly, that you would have the common sense to understand that I had misspelled hominid as homonid. After all, the link I supplied was to the entry hominid, not homonid. That you intepret my remarks above as "evasive" is only further evidence of your ignorance in these matters. So, just so that we are clear on this, wherever I wrote homonid, mentally replace it with hominid, and your misunderstanding should be all cleared up.

You used the term twice. And twice, you claimed confidently that I had "got it wrong" (whatever that means). If you think I will buy your typo plea, you are mistaken.

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Amen-Moses

Here is a link that might be handy here:

<a href="http://acolw.org/leakey1.htm" target="_blank">http://acolw.org/leakey1.htm</a>

Hope that helps.

Amen-Moses