Mitochondrial Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hatsoff said:
I am accustomed to set-theoretic definitions, so I will answer your question thusly: Consider species S and species T, each with a set of ancestral species A(S) and A(T). Then S is the immediate ancestor of T if and only if A(T) = A(S) ∪ {S}.

In other words, S is the immediate ancestor of T if and only if T is descended from S with no intermediate species in between.

This does not mean that one generation is S, and the next generation is T, unless of course one stipulates so for the sake of a certain context.
Click to expand...
This is merely an explanation of pure-breeding unless you were merely saying the exact same thing already said.

The statement was;
cerad said:
Nope. The transition between a homo sapien and their immediate ancestor did not occur in a single generation. Populations evolve, not individuals.
Click to expand...
That statement means that the first homo sapien did not occur from an immediate ancestry. Somehow the homo sapien occurred without an immediate ancestor. How do you do that? How do you have no homo sapien one generation then have homo sapien the next but the homo sapien wasn’t the “immediate” offspring of anyone?
 
James_S_Saint said:
That statement means that the first homo sapien did not occur from an immediate ancestry. Somehow the homo sapien occurred without an immediate ancestor. How do you do that? How do you have no homo sapien one generation then have homo sapien the next but the homo sapien wasn’t the “immediate” offspring of anyone?
Click to expand...
You seem to be hung up on the notion that, at some point, we have a child labeled “homo sapien” with a mother that is not. As my original post said, this is not the way things work in biology and evolution.

Let me try explaining using a few more words. Let’s start with a particular specie; Call it Species A. If we examine individual members of Species A we find that for the most part they are very similar and can inter-breed. Pretty much the definition of biological species.

Now we let some time go by and maybe add a bit of environmental change just to speed things up. How much time? Lets say 100,000 generations. Sound like a long time but it’s really just a few million years; hardly a blink of the eye on an evolutionary time scale.

Now lets examine the descendants of Species A. We will probably find that many of them are quite similar to each other and can inter-breed. But when we compare these descendants to the original Species A then we will probably find some major changes. Brian sizes could be different, diet might be different, structure of the joints might be different, size could definitely be different and more than likely it would be clear that the descendants could not interbreed with the Species A.

In other words, we would have a new species, call it Species B.

So at what point did Species A transform into Species B? Was there a single generation where babies would be considered Species B while their mother was Species A? Of course not. Over one hundred thousand generations, descendants of Species A gradually changed in to one or more new species. There is no sharp dividing line between two species.

Hope this helps.
 
SO you are saying that “homo-sapien” has no actual definition such that we could say “that is, and that isn’t” and thus any origin is defined out. By definition, “it came from whatever came before it and that is not definable - (but really, really, isn’t from anything Intelligent!!)”

Sounds like they have just painted over the gap with the color gray.
 
James_S_Saint said:
SO you are saying that “homo-sapien” has no actual definition such that we could say “that is, and that isn’t” and thus any origin is defined out. By definition, “it came from whatever came before it and that is not definable - (but really, really, isn’t from anything Intelligent!!)”

Sounds like they have just painted over the gap with the color gray.
Click to expand...
When scientists find a fossil they have to classify it. They use various criteria to classify each fossil. For example, one of the ways to determine if a new Hominid fossil is Australoopithecus or Homo is to look at the brain size. The average adult brain size for all Australopithecines is less than about 510cc while the average for Homo is more than 510cc. Other criteria are used as well, limb proportions, teeth etc. Notice that these are average brain sizes. We can find Australopithecus fossils with larger than average brain sizes, and Homo fossils with smaller than average brain sizes.

Over time we can see the average brain size of a population increasing, but at any given time the individual sizes of each member will be scattered over a range of values. Some may be in the area labelled “Australopithecus” while others are in the area labelled “Homo”. Yet all these individuals would be part of the same population and able to interbreed.

The criteria used to classify fossils, when you just have the bones and not the full organism, are inevitably statistical. If the brain, teeth, limbs are all in agreement then the classification is easy. If not then it is more difficult. In all cases the classification is statistical, and inevitably there are exceptional members of all populations.

rossum
 
James_S_Saint said:
SO you are saying that “homo-sapien” has no actual definition such that we could say “that is, and that isn’t” and thus any origin is defined out. By definition, “it came from whatever came before it and that is not definable - (but really, really, isn’t from anything Intelligent!!)”

Sounds like they have just painted over the gap with the color gray.
Click to expand...
If you could translate this into English then I might be able to respond. One characteristic generally associated with homo sapiens is the ability to communicate using language.
 
rossum said:
When scientists find a fossil they have to classify it. They use various criteria to classify each fossil. For example, one of the ways to determine if a new Hominid fossil is Australoopithecus or Homo is to look at the brain size. The average adult brain size for all Australopithecines is less than about 510cc while the average for Homo is more than 510cc. Other criteria are used as well, limb proportions, teeth etc. Notice that these are average brain sizes. We can find Australopithecus fossils with larger than average brain sizes, and Homo fossils with smaller than average brain sizes.

Over time we can see the average brain size of a population increasing, but at any given time the individual sizes of each member will be scattered over a range of values. Some may be in the area labelled “Australopithecus” while others are in the area labelled “Homo”. Yet all these individuals would be part of the same population and able to interbreed.

The criteria used to classify fossils, when you just have the bones and not the full organism, are inevitably statistical. If the brain, teeth, limbs are all in agreement then the classification is easy. If not then it is more difficult. In all cases the classification is statistical, and inevitably there are exceptional members of all populations.

rossum
Click to expand...
Thank you. That is what I had just said.
 
I’m sure those vids backup what rossum said which I understood (even before he said it). The fact that you understand rossum but do not understand what I said merely lets me know why you don’t understand what I said. You are seeing ghosts. 😉
 
James_S_Saint said:
I’m sure those vids backup what rossum said which I understood (even before he said it). The fact that you understand rossum but do not understand what I said merely lets me know why you don’t understand what I said. You are seeing ghosts. 😉
Click to expand...
Ah ok, my apologies then, we are all singing from the same sheet. 😉
 
cerad said:
If you could translate this into English then I might be able to respond. One characteristic generally associated with homo sapiens is the ability to communicate using language.
Click to expand...
Thank you Cerad – I was hoping someone would ask for an English translation!
 
James_S_Saint said:
Well it was said that only pure breeds have immediate ancestors, so I guess the mut has no immediate ancestor. But the homosapien at some point would have to be merely a mut[tant] from another former breed or breeds. So what has been said is that the homosapien has no immediate ancestor.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The immediate ancestor of the mutt is its mother and father. The immediate ancestor of a member of *Homo sapiens *is its parents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top