Ted Hoffman

Jesse said :Incidentally, you should take Intensity's post with a large grain of salt--virtually no one in the scientific community takes the "exploded planet hypothesis" seriously (see the When the gods came down thread if you're interested).

Resorting to argumentum ad numerum now are we?

Jesse

Ohwilleke said :For that matter the oldest evidence of humankind (or pre-human hominids) is about 1,000,000-5,000,000 years ago which is still long after the dinosaurs expired. Morever, there are multiple lines of corroborating evidence (gentic diversity, archeology, location of fossil finds, linguistic patterns) that suggest the humanity orginated in Africa, so the likelihood of finding human fossils older than the oldest pre-human fossil finds made in Africa is remote.

Intensity:
Actually, the earlist human ancestor, based on the ProCon Skull (Proconsul man?) is supposed to have lived 22mya.

What do you mean "earliest human ancestor?" Unless you doubt the theory of evolution, human ancestry can be traced all the way back to the first life on earth. Perhaps you meant the "earliest human", but proconsul (I've never heard the term "ProCon") was not a "man" nor even a hominid, although it was a hominoid (the group consisting of both hominids and 'apes'). It was not bipedal, and in appearance it probably would have resembled something like a chimp, although according to <a href="http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8932/proconsul.html" target="_blank">this</a> page different proconsul species could vary widely in size, from 10 to 150 pounds (the page also mentions that their brains were smaller than those of modern apes like chimps and gorillas).

Jesse

Intensity:
Resorting to argumentum ad numerum now are we?

Overwhelming consensus among experts in a particular subject area is generally a good guide when you're not an expert yourself. Of course it is always best to try to gain some understanding of the issue yourself, but unless you have an in-depth knowledge of the subject your judgements will always be only partially informed, so it makes sense to give greater weight to arguments by people who do have such in-depth knowledge (but 'give greater weight to' does not mean 'automatically assume they're right', of course). And there are other ways to recognize when one side seems more informed even if you don't fully understand the issues yourself--for example, one side may consistently make qualitative hand-wavey claims while the other consistently uses detailed facts and figures to refute them.

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

atrahasis

What do you mean "earliest human ancestor?" Unless you doubt the theory of evolution, human ancestry can be traced all the way back to the first life on earth.

I don't doubt and i beleive also intesity does not but the theory of evolution is not as perfect as you try to put it.

For example the method we use to date most of these fossils is mainly based approximation so.......(truncated)

Ted Hoffman

Jesse : What do you mean "earliest human ancestor?" Unless you doubt the theory of evolution, human ancestry can be traced all the way back to the first life on earth.

All life can be traced back to the first "life" on earth so your criticism is a non-argument.

Jesse: Perhaps you meant the "earliest human", but proconsul (I've never heard the term "ProCon") was not a "man" nor even a hominid, although it was a hominoid (the group consisting of both hominids and 'apes'). It was not bipedal, and in appearance it probably would have resembled something like a chimp, although according to this page different proconsul species could vary widely in size, from 10 to 150 pounds (the page also mentions that their brains were smaller than those of modern apes like chimps and gorillas).

That is a strawman you erected and knocked down. Man, you are good.

Jesse : Overwhelming consensus among experts in a particular subject area is generally a good guide when you're not an expert yourself.

It's called the path of least resistence. Thank you. Some call it herd mentality. Ever heard of the "collective madness" that grips scientists? You know how long it took b4 the plate tectonics theory (continental drift) was accepted? And Corpenicus' theories?
All new theories undergo what EPH is undergoing now. It's no biggie, only one extremely green about the history of science can be swayed by that.
I am quite familiar with the conventional theories on the formation of planets and asteroids and I know its weaknesses. So I dont exactly have to rely on herd mentality as a guide.
About the "hand wavey" approach, the conventional theories are riddled with ad-hoc explanations and so on.
At the end of the day both EPH and the conventional theories might be wrong. I examine each based on its merit, not popularity.

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.

Jesse

Jesse : What do you mean "earliest human ancestor?" Unless you doubt the theory of evolution, human ancestry can be traced all the way back to the first life on earth.

Intensity:
All life can be traced back to the first "life" on earth so your criticism is a non-argument.

It wasn't meant to be an argument, I was just puzzled by your statement that proconsul is the "earliest human ancestor." Presumably you didn't mean it literally, since the shrewlike mammals that lived in the mesozoic were also our ancestors, and they lived much earlier than proconsul.

Jesse: Perhaps you meant the "earliest human", but proconsul (I've never heard the term "ProCon") was not a "man" nor even a hominid, although it was a hominoid (the group consisting of both hominids and 'apes'). It was not bipedal, and in appearance it probably would have resembled something like a chimp, although according to this page different proconsul species could vary widely in size, from 10 to 150 pounds (the page also mentions that their brains were smaller than those of modern apes like chimps and gorillas).

Intensity:
That is a strawman you erected and knocked down. Man, you are good.

No need to be so argumentative--again, I was unsure what you meant, so I was offering some possible interpretations and showing why none of them make sense to me. No "strawman", since I don't claim to understand what you meant when you said proconsul was the "earliest human ancestor." Could you explain?

Jesse : Overwhelming consensus among experts in a particular subject area is generally a good guide when you're not an expert yourself.

Intensity:
It's called the path of least resistence. Thank you. Some call it herd mentality. Ever heard of the "collective madness" that grips scientists? You know how long it took b4 the plate tectonics theory (continental drift) was accepted?

It took a long time before it was accepted, yes. But I don't think most geologists claimed there was overwhelming evidence against it either, and in fact the conservatism was partly justified, since the really persuasive evidence for continental drift was not discovered until well after the theory was proposed.

If, when continental drift was still struggling, the concensus of scientists was ever that all the needed evidence was already in and that it completely ruled out continental drift, you'd have a point. But I don't think that's what actually happened, historically.

Intensity:
And Corpenicus' theories?

This was really before modern science as we know it existed--many of the reasons for rejecting heliocentrism were based on religious arguments, for example.

Intensity:
All new theories undergo what EPH is undergoing now.

Not at all. Most really novel theories do experience plenty of initial skepticism and calls for more tests/evidence, but I can think of few or no theories that were considered to be total crackpottery and unworthy of serious consideration by any experts in the field, which later gained acceptance. Even though it's possible such a thing could happen, and may have happened once or twice in history, it certainly does not match the general pattern.

Intensity:
I am quite familiar with the conventional theories on the formation of planets and asteroids and I know its weaknesses. So I dont exactly have to rely on herd mentality as a guide.

I am not convinced that you have evinced much deep familiarity with conventional theories and the evidence for them on the "when the gods came down" thread. Just my opinion of course.

Intensity:
About the "hand wavey" approach, the conventional theories are riddled with ad-hoc explanations and so on.

So you say. But certainly they do rely on quite a lot more explicit physical calculations then I have seen from the EPH proponents, not to mention detailed data (compare your own vague assertion of 'one side of mars is saturated with craters' with beausoleil's more detailed discussion of cratering patterns on mars, the precise definition of 'saturation', etc., on the top of p. 4...or compare Van Flandern's claim about the K/T boundary and 'other craters clustered near the same time' with Patrick's enumeration of the known craters and their dates, none of which are close to the K/T boundary at all).

Intensity:
At the end of the day both EPH and the conventional theories might be wrong. I examine each based on its merit, not popularity.

Please note that I am not interested in "popularity" in general, just the opinion of people who have devoted their lives to studying the relevant fields. And as I said before, this is only one factor, I do think you should investigate every claim for yourself to the best of your ability.

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

bluefugue

I didn't see Jesse erecting or knocking down any straw men. He was just trying to clarify things about Proconsul and what is meant by the term "human ancestor."

Jesse

He was just trying to clarify things about Proconsul and what is meant by the term "human ancestor."

Right, the only two interpretations of "earliest human ancestor" that I could imagine were "earliest ancestor of humans" or "our earliest ancestor that could still be called 'human'". Neither would be correct, since proconsul was not our earliest ancestor, nor was it "human" (unless you count apes as 'humans'). But if Intensity has another way to parse the phrase "earliest human ancestor" I'd be happy to hear it.

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.
Proconsul is a hominoid as Jesse correctly pointed out so your assertion that Proconsul is neither a human nor a hominoid is incorrect. Are you using homonid and hominoid synonymously? Homonid, I beleive was used in the old classification systems.

Jesse: No "strawman", since I don't claim to understand what you meant when you said proconsul was the "earliest human ancestor." Could you explain?

I think its a lot better to ask what one means before responding to a statement whenever the meaning is unclear, don't you agree? An unclear meaning is no excuse to redact what I have said then address it. I find that a very flippant approach to debate.
"Earliest human" is clearly different from "earliest human ancestor" and thats why I found your excersise one of attacking a strawman.

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.

Hominidae belongs to this superfamily.

The following are the general hominoid characteristics:

• distinctive molar teeth, exhibiting a 5 pointed crown, (known as a Y-5 pattern);
• orthograde posture;
• flexible arm and shoulder joints;
• arms longer than legs (except for humans);
• absence of a tail;
• large, complex brains.

These are obviously not human. Thus, human ancestors, not earliest humans (its the common ancestry we share with apes). <a href="http://www.umanitoba.ca/anthropology/courses/121/primatology/hominoid.html" target="_blank">This site</a> has more on hominoids.

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.

About EPH, its an ongoing discussion. I can see you have already made up your mind. I haven't. I dont want to hijack this thread with discussions on EPH.