Re: On ancestry
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Many measurements which are not very useful have been used to create highly inaccurate phylogenetic trees. In the past for example for humans, skin color, prognathy, brain size, body size, morphological closeness to Africans (Africans and Sahulians in the recent past being considered the most “primitive” humans and some how ancestral to all other humans). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Whole genomic distances are just one more in a long series of blunders in human phylogeny. For those who understand modern evolutionary biology and natural selection, they know whole genomic distances can be like convergent evolution, and indicate similar niches, and not always accurately predict phylogeny. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________Linear evolution is widely thought to be a false concept in evolutionary biology now, and some paleoanthropologists have modern enough education to know this (Fuentes for example). We do not know which extant great ape humans are closest to (had their initial divergence from most recently). Morphologically, we are closest to orangutans (Schwartz et al, who have done the most detailed cladistic studies on this matter). _________________________________________________________________________________________________That we are closer to chimps than other extant great apes is yet another questionable artifact of the failed Out of Africa series of hypothesis (which assume some how Africa is the evolutionary Garden of Eden). The only Out of Africa hypothesis supported by real evidence is at 2.1,mya. All the others start with the false axiom Africa is the Garden of Eden (or before in Out of Africa Africans were obviously the lowest extant form of human life so had to be basal in a linear evolution sense with other humans). And establish themselves only on the assumption of a both false and magical premise which is to an axiom, and usually not even an hypothesis in all but one case. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________If we diverged from Pan before orangs, and last had strong gene flow with Pan, that does mot mean Pan is our closest relative. What this would suggest is that main human ancestry some how at some time became more geographically in contact with Pan than orangs (which supports OoA at 2.1 million years ago, with a hominin extinction or near extinction in Eurasian some time before 2.1mya). And ‘ or it suggests that of all the derived exotic great apes genes in humans, Pan genes were more favored than others. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________It has been known for about five years all great apes today have derived genes from all other great apes, humans being a type of great ape. That means we had gene flow which survived until today, from every type of great ape’s ancestors alive today after they diverged from humans. No way to know why Pan genes are more common, it could be because of a later divergence (which is not supported either by the fossil record or extant morphology). Or it could just mean humans and Pan screwed around more with each other than they did with other great apes, and preferred similar niches favoring each others genes more as exotic genes.
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Allan Krill
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 4:07 AM
Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 06:32 AM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
Alan, This and your next post about DNA make no sense to me. Do you think that humans are more closely related to orangutans than they are to chimpanzees or gorillas? Or maybe you think ‘closely related’ is not a meaningful concept in evolution or human evolution??