Re: Bats are our ancestors but not our relatives ? Evolutionary double speak
Taq writes:
You don't understand how your cousin is not your ancestor?
Perhaps inbreeding could be part of the problem.
No, three of you said that primates (chimps included) came from bats.
Nope, not true. Related in the way that bats (and all mammals) are related, the way cousins are related, but not ancestral the way your cousin is not ancestral (unless inbreeding).
So according to your wild unproven theory, bats are our common ancestor or are chimps also in there, or did they mate together upside down and produce right side up humans.
You must realise that your outlandish theories are laughable to say the least when you try and explain, how our ancestors are not our cousins and uncles, and relatives...
But thanks for the chuckle, but again I must ask you to expand your thoughts more than into one sentence. Expand, explain, how our ancestors are not our relatives. Or you can say, you made a rather large MISTAKE, and clarify your LARGE MISTAKE.
But do try and get those chimps back into a logical branch either before humans appeared or after, but surely not coupled together with bats. It clogs up your bel-fries....
So all of this garbage is based on false understanding of the difference between "related" and "ancestral" ... GIGO, spam in diarrhea out.
For your edification (a useless exercise in futility but what the hey):
The daughter populations are related, but neither is ancestral to the other, that role falls to the Common Ancestor Population.
Carrying this further:
All groups are related, but only "A" is ancestral to the others, "B" is ancestral to "C", "D", "E" and "F" while "C" is ancestral to "D" and "E" and "G" is only ancestral to "H" and "I" ... so
Bats could be "I" and people could be "D" and they would be related -- by descent from the common ancestor population "A" ... which is neither primate nor bat but some early mammalid.
So once again your preposterous puerile pontifications are shown to be nothing more than vapid ignorance and willful denial masquerading as valid content.
Now, let the spamming and ludicrous trolling replies commence, with no relevance to this information, because that is what losers do.
Enjoy
PS: the purpose of trolling is to disrupt the debate and deflect it to other topics, while spewing insults to encourage angry retorts. They "win" when they accomplish this goal, so any claims of "winning" while making posts of this type is essentially an admission of trolling.
Again, the website is hyperlinked on each level, so you can see that bats (Chiroptera) are listed near the top, that they are descendant from one of two branches under Eutheria, Laurasiatheria. You can also see that Primates are descended from the other branch, Euarchontaglires.
So the last common ancestor (parent) population shared by ancestors of bats and ancestors of people was Eutheria, the parent population of the whole clade of Eutherian Mammals.
I checked by clicking on the Chiroptera link and got the following:
The Chiroptera clade on the paleos.com site is still under development so as a double check we can look at the whole dendrogram for Chiroptera (bats) from this site:
Order Chiroptera Megachiropteramorpha (unranked name) Suborder Megachiroptera Family Pteropodidae Microchiropteramorpha (unranked name) Family Icaronycteridae Family Archaeonycteridae Microchiropteraformes (unranked name) Family Palaeochiropterygidae Family Hassianycteridae Suborder Microchiroptera Superfamily Emballonuroidea Family Emballonuridae Subfamily Taphozoinae Subfamily Emballonurinae Infraorder Yinochiroptera Superfamily Rhinopomatoidea Family Craseonycteridae Family Rhinopomatidae Superfamily Rhinolophoidea Family Nycteridae Family Megadermatidae Family Rhinolophidae Subfamily Rhinolophinae Subfamily Hipposiderinae Infraorder Yangochiroptera Superfamily Noctilionoidea Family Mystacinidae Family Phyllostomidae Family Mormoopidae Family Noctilionidae Superfamily Nataloidea Family Myzopodidae Family Furipteridae Family Thyropteridae Family Natalidae Superfamily Molossoidea Family Antrozoidae Family Molossidae Subfamily Tomopeatinae Subfamily Molossinae Superfamily Vespertilionoidea Family Vespertilionidae Subfamily Vespertilioninae Subfamily Miniopterinae Subfamily Myotinae Subfamily Murininae Subfamily Kerivoulinae
extinct
No primates in those clades. No primates descended from the original Chiroptera common ancestor population. Bats are not ancestral to humans.
Laurasiatheria is a superorder of placental mammals that originated on the northern supercontinent of Laurasia 99 million years ago. The superorder includes shrews, pangolins, bats, whales, carnivorans, odd-toed and even-toed ungulates, among others.
Classification and phylogeny
Laurasiatheria was discovered on the basis of the similar gene sequences shared by the mammals belonging to it; no anatomical features have yet been found that unite the group. Laurasiatheria is a clade usually discussed without a Linnaean rank, but has been assigned the rank of cohort or magnorder, and superorder. The Laurasiatheria clade is based on DNA sequence analyses and retrotransposon presence/absence data. The name comes from the theory that these mammals evolved on the supercontinent of Laurasia, after it split from Gondwana when Pangaea broke up. It is a sister group to Euarchontoglires (or Supraprimates) ...
Euarchontoglires (synonymous with Supraprimates) is a clade and a superorder of mammals, the living members of which belong to one of the five following groups: rodents, lagomorphs, treeshrews, colugos and primates.
The Euarchontoglires clade is based on DNA sequence analyses and retrotransposon markers that combine the clades Glires (Rodentia + Lagomorpha) and Euarchonta (Scandentia + Primates + Dermoptera).[citation needed] So far, few if any anatomical features that support Euarchontoglires have been recognized, nor does any strong evidence from anatomy support alternative hypotheses.
Bats and humans are related via ancestry from eutheria common ancestor but neither descended from the other.
The eutheria common ancestor was neither bat nor person. As you can see this is supported by consilient information on multiple websites.
My threads get shut down because apparrently I dont answer questions, so do please respond.... as there are multitudes of you HERE posting.
It's not just a matter of posting something to reply to questions, it is a matter of addressing the issues raised, providing evidence to back your assertions and presenting it in a rational logical format, not making or repeating bare assertions.
No: Bats are our relatives but not our ancestors - Like cousins ...
To reprise what I said in Message 92 previously in this thread:
quote:Carrying this further:
All groups are related, but only "A" is ancestral to the others, "B" is ancestral to "C", "D", "E" and "F" while "C" is ancestral to "D" and "E" and "G" is only ancestral to "H" and "I" ... so
Bats could be "I" and people could be "D" and they would be related -- by descent from the common ancestor population "A" ... which is neither primate nor bat but some early mammalid.
I can now put some names to those letters:
Bats are "I" and "G" is Laurasiatheria, the first Laurasiatheria was not a bat but a parent of what becomes bats.
while "A" is the first Eutheria mammals, neither bat nor primate (nor human).
"D" is humans, while "C" is primates. The first primates were not humans but parents of what becomes humans.
"B" is Euarchontaglires, the first Euarchontaglires were not primates but parents to what becomes primates.
"B" and "G" are sister clades, neither one descended from the other, they descended independently from Eutheria.
And yet dont seem to acknowledge this great BREAKTHROUGH in science from their standpoint or according to their theory.
For its these tree shrews, that would be our MISSING LINK that connects us to the past. Forget a MISSING LINK within primates, but the missing link previous in our supposed human branching of the past til today, that connects us to all the other animals.
So lets allow evolutionists to have their moment in the Sun, and ask them about this great missing link connection that they say is scientific.
For bats are our cousins and apparrently not our ancestors, so lets consider treeshews. and our MISSING LINKS to our origins
Sincerely Yours
David
I see no reason why we cannot continue this current discussion of the history of human and bat evolution to include this new article on tree shrews and incorporate their position in the descent into the discussion.
The first question I would ask is why does Davidjay think this is (a) a problem to evolution or (b) something new.
We'll start with the clade name being Euarchonta rather than Eurachondra, and then go with Euarchonta being combined with Glires to make a new superfamily, group called Euarchontoglires, due to their genetic similarities.
Euarchontoglires (synonymous with Supraprimates) is a clade and a superorder of mammals, the living members of which belong to one of the five following groups: rodents, lagomorphs, treeshrews, colugos and primates.
The Euarchontoglires clade is based on DNA sequence analyses and retrotransposon markers that combine the clades Glires (Rodentia + Lagomorpha) and Euarchonta (Scandentia + Primates + Dermoptera).[citation needed] So far, few if any anatomical features that support Euarchontoglires have been recognized, nor does any strong evidence from anatomy support alternative hypotheses.
This is our basal clade common ancestor that we share with modern tree shrews (all those drawings in the article are modern tree shrews), which (like bats) are cousins rather than ancestors (or "missing links").
And Scandentia are the ancestors for the modern tree shrews, making Archonta our last common ancestors.
quote:Scandentia (= Tupaioidea): Ptilocercus, tree shrews (Tupaia), Urogale. Squirrel-like omnivores of S and SE Asian forests & esp. Borneo & Philippines.
Range: from the Middle Eocene, possibly Paleocene.
Characters: Long, narrow skull; dental formula: 2/3, 1/1, 3/3, 3/3; I 1&2 are caniniform; C1 reduced; d1-2 form tooth comb; upper molars with cutting surfaces & dilambdodont; lower molars basic tribosphenic form; snout long & pointed; vibrissae absent; some arboreal species have forward-facing eyes & may have binocular vision; orbits completely surrounded with bone; well-developed postorbital process joins zygomatic arch; zygomatic arch complete, with prominent fenestra; relatively large brain (esp. arboreal forms); auditory bulla complete, formed from entotympanic; tail long & heavily furred; pubic bones united in a long symphysis; digits 5/5; 1st digits point somewhat inward with some grasping ability; all digits have claws; scrotal testes; opportunistic foragers, both arboreal & terrestrial; ...
The treeshrews (or tree shrews or banxrings[2]) are small euarchont mammals native to the tropical forests of Southeast Asia. They make up the families Tupaiidae, the treeshrews, and Ptilocercidae, the pen-tailed treeshrew, and the entire order Scandentia. The 20 species are placed in five genera. Treeshrews have a higher brain to body mass ratio than any other mammal, including humans,[3] but high ratios are not uncommon for animals weighing less than a kilogram.
Though called 'treeshrews', and despite having previously been classified in Insectivora, they are not true shrews, and not all species live in trees. Among other things, treeshrews eat Rafflesia fruit.
Among orders of mammals, treeshrews are closely related to primates, and have been used as an alternative to primates in experimental studies of myopia, psychosocial stress, and hepatitis.[4]
In any event, calling tree shrews a "missing link" is making the same mistake made with bats.
So I reread the Scientific American Article, Introducing the Treeshrews: They Don't All Live in Trees and They Aren't Close to Shrews, and nowhere in the article did it say that tree shrews were ancestral to primates (and hence to people), so Davidjay's continued assertion to this effect is making the same mistake he made with bats. It's the same pattern of claim and insinuation without any apparent acceptance of corrections.
Treeshrews were suppose to be our primate ancestor, not a cousin or a brother, but a forefather.... all four of you said it, and finally answered what evolution believes in, as our common ancestor.
Do not switch back to a primate and confuse your branching....
So your silly chimps do not apply, they are primates, and that is a secondary mistake of yours or a theoretical branching of yours.
So come on evolutionists quite switching horses in mid stream or mid branch.
The "Treeshrews were suppose to be our primate ancestor, not a cousin or a brother, but a forefather." statement is clearly false and was never said by the article he refers to (but doesn't quote) nor any post in any of these threads. Repeating falsehoods aggressively and rejecting correct information is not debate.
What the article says about the descent of tree shrews:
quote:Treeshrews: where in the placental family tree? Traditionally, treeshrews were regarded as members of Insectivora, this being due both to their highly superficial similarity to shrews, and to the idea that Insectivora should serve as a catch-all group for a poorly defined, amorphous group of placentals that lack the specialisations of other lineages. During the 1920s, Wilfred Le Gros Clark and Albertina Carlsson made it obvious that treeshrews share anatomical characters with Primates (Huxley had also noted this connection in 1872), and this eventually led to the proposal that they should be removed from Insectivora and placed within that group (Simpson 1945, Sargis 2004).
However, treeshrews are so different from classic primates — and so obviously outside the clade that includes all ‘true’ primates fossil and living — that the idea of distinct, ordinal status became increasingly popular from the 1960s onwards (Van Valen 1965, McKenna 1966, Szalay 1968). Today they are universally identified as the isolated group Scandentia*. Bony features used to unite Scandentia mostly concern details of braincase vasculature but fusion of the scaphoid and lunate in the wrist also appears distinctive (Silcox et al. 2005).
Current molecular consensus for euarchontans and kin. Other phylogenetic hypotheses are available.
Treeshrews might not be part of Primates, but they do share anatomical characters (in the skeleton and in numerous organ systems) with primates as well as with the so-called flying lemurs (Dermoptera). The idea that they’re part of the placental group Euarchonta is therefore universally accepted more or less (read on). Some molecular studies suggest an especially close relationship between treeshrews and flying lemurs (Murphy et al. 2001, Olson et al. 2005, Springer et al. 2007, Prasad et al. 2008, Asher et al. 2009). This hypothesis has become quite popular and the clade that contains the two has been termed Sundatheria (Olson et al. 2005) or Paraprimates (Springer et al. 2007). ‘Sundatheria’ refers to the idea that these mammals are strongly associated with Sundaland, the biogeographical region that incorporates Borneo, Sumatra, peninsula Malaysia and the adjacent continental shelf region that would have been exposed during times of low sea level. ...
It is hard to see how anyone doing even a cursory reading of the article could come to the conclusion that it says treeshrews are ancestral to humans, particularly when that picture show a clear and unambiguous cladogram with primates and Scandentia evolving separately from their Euarconta common ancestor.
Euarconta is neither Primate nor Scandentia, but ancestral to both.
Euarconta is neither Primate nor Scandentia, but ancestral to both.
The rain in spain falls mainly on the plain ... I think he's got it ...
... Euarconta is our ancestor, but he or she says it is neither Primate... NO its suppose to be our ancestor our foreftaher, where we braanched off from. ...
Nope, he missed it. Again. Let's try again on the guitar ... with feeling ...
Tree shrews are Scandentians.
Scandentians evolved from an early (older) population of Sandatherians/Paraprimates, so all Scandentians are Sandatherians/Paraprimates (once a dog, always a dog).
But not all Sandatherians/Paraprimates are Scandentians ... some are Dermopterans.
Dermopterans also evolved from an early (older) population of Sandatherians/Paraprimates, so all Dermopterans are also Sandatherians/Paraprimates (once a dog, always a dog).
Scandentians and Dermopterans are related, like cousins, but neither one is ancestral to the other.
Humans evolved from an early (older) population of apes, so all humans are also apes (once a dog, always a dog).
But not all apes are humans ... some are chimps, some are gorillas, etc.
Apes evolved from an early (older) population of primates, so all apes are also primates (once a dog, always a dog).
But not all primates are apes.
Humans are related to other apes and other primates. Again, related like cousins because apes share a common ancestor with humans and primates share a common ancestor with apes.
Sandatherians/Paraprimates evolved from a common ancestor population of Euarchontans, so they are also Euarchontans - as are Dermopterans - (once a dog, always a dog).
But not all Euarchontans are Sandatherians/Paraprimates ... some are Primates.
Primates also evolved from an early (older) population of Euarchontans , so all Primates are also Euarchontans (once a dog, always a dog).
Sandatherians/Paraprimates and Primates are related, like cousins, but neither one is ancestral to the other.
Euarconta is an ancestor to us primates..
... evolutionists think we came from Euarconta... they said it again....
and again.
Yep, that's what the fossil and genetic evidence shows. It would be stupid and dumb to ignore the evidence that plainly exists in favor of a fantasy that doesn't exist.
Lets read it again.
Euarconta is neither Primate nor Scandentia, but ancestral to both.
Yep, because fossil and genetic evidence shows early Primates and early Scandentians evolved from an earlier (common ancestor) population of Euarcontans. And Evolutionists (science educated people) will continue to say what the evidence shows.
I win, creation wins, treeshrews lose..
Says the Black Knight as King Arthur trots away ...
Your time would be better spent on Evolution is a racist doctrine to actually explain why you think evolution is racist -- a request made by several people but you have failed to answer them.
The earliest Homo sapiens fossils found to date are from Ethiopia from about 200,000 years ago.
Technically "Humans" (genus Homo) evolved from Australopithicines, an extinct type of ape very similar to the first species of the Homo clade (ergaster and habilis).
Under the current taxonomy (based on genetic rather than behavioral criteria), the term "hominid" refers to members of the biological human family Hominidae: living humans, all human ancestors, the many extinct members of Australopithecus, and our closest primate relatives, the chimpanzee and gorilla.
The chart ... shows the evolutionary chronology inputed to these biological branches. Ardipithecus, the common primate ancestor to paranthropines, australopithecines and humans, went extinct about 4 million years ago.
What the cladogram shows in words is:
Hominini is a clade that includes:
Modern Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens),
archaic Homo sapiens,
paranthropines,
australopithecines,
Ardipithecus
and many others, including the original Hominini parent population that all other Hominini descended from. ... All Homo sapiens sapiens are members of the Hominini clade, but not all Hominini are Homo sapiens sapiens.
Homininae is a clade that includes:
Hominini:
Modern Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens),
archaic Homo sapiens,
paranthropines,
australopithecines,
Ardipithecus
and many others, including the original Hominini parent population that all other Hominini descended from.
Panini (Chimps and Bonobos).
and it includes the orignal Homininae parent population that all other Homininae descended from. ... All Homo sapiens sapiens are members of the Homininae clade, but not all Homininae are Homo sapiens sapiens.
Hominidae is a clade that includes:
Homininae:
Hominini:
Modern Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens),
archaic Homo sapiens,
paranthropines,
australopithecines,
Ardipithecus
and many others, including the original Hominini parent population that all other Hominini descended from.
Panini (Chimps and Bonobos).
and it includes the orignal Homininae parent population that all other Homininae descended from.
Gorillinae (Gorilla)
and it includes the orignal Hominidae parent population that all other Hominidae descended from. ... All Homo sapiens sapiens are members of the Hominidae clade, but not all Hominidae are Homo sapiens sapiens.
Hominoidae is a clade that includes
Hominidae:
Homininae:
Hominini
Modern Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens),
archaic Homo sapiens,
paranthropines,
australopithecines,
Ardipithecus
and many others, including the original Hominini parent population that all other Hominini descended from.
Panini (Chimps and Bonobos).
and it includes the orignal Homininae parent population that all other Homininae descended from.
Gorillinae (Gorilla)
and it includes the orignal Hominidae parent population that all other Hominidae descended from.
Pongidae (Orangutan)
and it includes the orignal Hominoidae parent population that all other Hominoidae descended from. ... All Homo sapiens sapiens are members of the Hominoidae clade, but not all Hominoidae are Homo sapiens sapiens.
Hominoidea is a clade that includes:
Hominoidae:
Hominidae:
Homininae:
Hominini
Modern Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens),
archaic Homo sapiens,
paranthropines,
australopithecines,
Ardipithecus
and many others, including the original Hominini parent population that all other Hominini descended from.
Panini (Chimps and Bonobos).
and it includes the orignal Homininae parent population that all other Homininae descended from.
Gorillinae (Gorillas)
and it includes the orignal Hominidae parent population that all other Hominidae descended from.
Pongidae (Orangutans)
and it includes the orignal Hominoidae parent population that all other Hominoidae descended from.
Hylobatoidae (Gibbons) ... All Homo sapiens sapiens are members of the Hominidae clade, but not all Hominidae are Homo sapiens sapiens.
Catarrhini is a clade that includes:
Hominoidea:
Hominoidae:
Hominidae:
Homininae:
Hominini
Modern Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens),
archaic Homo sapiens,
paranthropines,
australopithecines,
Ardipithecus
and many others, including the original Hominini parent population that all other Hominini descended from.
Panini (Chimps and Bonobos).
and it includes the orignal Homininae parent population that all other Homininae descended from.
Gorillinae (Gorillas)
and it includes the orignal Hominidae parent population that all other Hominidae descended from.
Pongidae (Orangutans)
and it includes the orignal Hominoidae parent population that all other Hominoidae descended from.
Hylobatoidae (Gibbons)
and it includes the orignal Catarrhini parent population that all other Catarrhini descended from
Cercopithecoidae (Baboons) ... All Homo sapiens sapiens are members of the Catarrhini clade, but not all Catarrhini are Homo sapiens sapiens.
This pattern is known as a "nested hierarchy" where clades are nested within clades. This nested hierarchy is a prediction of the Theory of Evolution, so when we see confirmation of this prediction in the genetic data that makes these cladograms, then we see that the theory has passed another validation test.
We are family All my brothers and sisters and me
Everything reproduces after it's own kind:
all humans have human children,
all Hominini have Hominini children,
all Homininae have Homininae children,
all Hominidae have Hominidae children,
all Hominoidae have Hominoidae children,
all Hominoidea have Hominoidea children,
all Catarrhini have Catarrhini children, ...
It doesn't get more biblical than that, right? It always amuses me when creationists reject the evidence for their own claims ...
I win, evolutionist is such a lie and so bogus, to be almsot laughable if it wasnt taken so seriously by the evolutionists.
Its just semantics brethren and non brethren, just word manipulation and spelling...
Read it again and marvel, that evolutionists actually believe our ancestors followed this spelling lineage......
You win a prize for being willfully ignorant and under informed, belligerent and full of undeserved pride.
Humans ancestor was Homininae, which came from Hominidae which evolved from Hominoidae which evolved from Hominoidea....
You can lead a creationist to the fountain of truth, but you can't make them drink.
There it is BREAKING NEWS, we humans evolved from Hominoidea's 20 million years ago..... our ancestors are hominoidea's..
and Hominini and Homininae and Hominidae and Hominoidae and Catarrhini ...
I say our ancestors were humans, the same as us.
And your objective empirical evidence is ... ? Your explanation for the fossil and genetic data is ... ?
Bluster and bombast is not evidence.
Evolutionists say different, you choose your ancestor, and see if spelling is the defining factor or whether truth and science and common sense prevails.
Failure to understand is not the fault of reality, but of the person who denies it. How the classifications are spelled is immaterial. Mocking the names shows cognitive dissonance in action. Sad.
But Davidjay cannot say his question was not answered.
Re: Ancestors were in clades with different but similar names
Then if your graph is correct, ...
It is what the objective empirical evidence shows. New information may cause slight revisions, but this represents the evidence as it is currently known.
... THEN who was our ancestor ? From what animal did we come from ?
Re: Ancestors were in clades with different but similar names
But seeing you say we evolved from a common ancestor, we should be now evolving as you speak and write, ...
We are. We evolve resistance to new diseases among other things. Those are, not surprisingly, beneficial mutations, and they get selected.
... and branching into new species as we speak..... we should have our people or homonoids evolving into new breeds or kinds which are substantially different than their ancestors.
Not necessary, certainly not what the theory of evolution says. Adaptation to an ecology does not mean speciation is necessary for evolution to occur.
This meaning at present we all are not exactly the same homonoids, or whatever linquistic term you used.... if not the same then we are by your definitions and so called logic, be DIFFERENT. Hence you are back to proving your theory is racist at heart and soul and by your very foundation.
Evolutionists just keep disproving their theories one after another....
Only in the confused mind of someone who does not (whether by intent or ability) fully grasp what evolution actually says.
™ Version 4.2
