6 ms·

The big problem with the conclusion about an ancestral link is the researchers weren't studying our ancestors, they were looking at contemporary modern apes. Ap

The big problem with the conclusion about an ancestral link is the researchers weren't studying our ancestors, they were looking at contemporary modern apes. Apes whose progenitors evolved side-by-side with humans. How can we be sure the apes haven't adapted their behavior based on their interactions with humans? Moreover, this type of reasoning reinforces the debunked model of speciation that claims apes are "less evolved" than humans. Modern apes have experienced the exact same amount of evolution as we have. It's only a difference in which ecological niche we each happened to specialize in.

scotty79 4y ago
> Moreover, this type of reasoning reinforces the debunked model of speciation that claims apes are "less evolved" than humans. They are less evolved in terms of acoustic language.
- scott_w 4y ago
  But then we’re “less evolved” in terms of grip strength, force generation and any number of areas where other apes beat us. There’s no such thing as “more evolved” or “less evolved,” which is the parent’s point.
  - scotty79 4y ago
    Sure but the article talks about communication. If it was talking about grip strength humans might be portrayed like less evolved.
    - automatic6131 4y ago
      >If it was talking about grip strength humans might be portrayed like less evolved. There is, in no sense, any way to talk about less/more evolved. Except for age of lineage, which is the same for all life on earth.
      - pegasus 4y ago
        Why would it depend solely on the duration? Some species stabilize and don't change much over millions of years (like crocodiles), others change rapidly in a comparatively short period of time (like humans).
        Azek 4y ago
        Are you suggesting we should measure how 'evolved' a species is by the mutation rate in their lineage, or by 'successful' adaption through mutation? I'm not sure but I think the above poster was making the point that saying 'more' or 'less' evolved implies the possibility of a generalised qualitative measuring of mutations.
        pegasus 4y ago
        He didn't even mention mutations or measurements, so you might be reading a bit too much into it there. But yeah, I guess one (or a whole army of scientists) could think up a measurement scheme like that, starting from the last common ancestor. Meanwhile, I propose we continue using words like "evolved" in an informal way since they might turn out to have more meat to them than initially apparent.
        scott_w 4y ago
        No he’s pretty much right. I wasn’t talking about mutations specifically but there’s no objective “more” or “less” when it comes to evolution. Just “different.”
        pegasus 4y ago
        Why not though? To me it sounds dogmatic to make such pronouncements without any evidence. Just because nobody has come up with a formula for something doesn't make it unreal. Phenomena exist outside of our small rationally circumscribed model of the world. Homo sapiens has adapted to a incredible variety of environments, we've pushed ourselves way outside our comfort zone and accumulated and enormous amount of changes in a short period of time. It makes sense that we've accumulated more "genetic experience" this way, that we've grown further than other species. This is how most people use the word "evolved", seems fair enough to me.
- _Algernon_ 4y ago
  Considering any extant species to be "less evolved" displays a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution doesn't move towards a greater goal. All extant species - whether flatworms or humans - are equally evolved.
  - scotty79 4y ago
    I'm definitely less evolved towards the underground movement than mole rat. See what I did here? I chose the specific goal for evolution and evaluated how far evolution brought two species towards this goal.
    - _Algernon_ 4y ago
      >I chose You certainly can choose any arbitrary goal of "evaluating" evolution, but any conclusions you come to are meaningless, because the premise that you can evaluate evolution this way is based on the fundamental misunderstanding of evolution that it works towards a greater goal. This is not true. Hence, any conclusion you make is not true...
      - scotty79 4y ago
        "I'm definitely less evolved towards the underground movement than mole rat." is not meaningless. When I say it you know exactly what I mean. > misunderstanding of evolution that it works towards a greater goal I never said there's any greater intrinsic goal of evolution (except fitting specific niche). I said you may specify goals for the evolution and evaluate how far it got towards reaching that goal. For example, we are not sufficiently evolved towards covid immunity however we are somewhat evolved towards black plague immunity when compared to people who lived in times before black plague.
havelhovel 4y ago
Nothing about this article indicates that anyone thinks apes are “less evolved” than humans. Finding similarities between branches of the evolutionary tree is a common way to build knowledge about shared ancestors. We do the same within our species as well. But if you want to be precise, I wouldn’t say our evolutionary pressures are the “exact same” at this point. There are indications that human evolution has accelerated as a consequence of our spread and technology, while other apes have remained relatively undisturbed in their EEAs up until the last few centuries. https://www.science.org/content/article/human-evolution-speeding https://www.science.org/content/article/human-evolution-spee...

scotty79 4y ago

> Moreover, this type of reasoning reinforces the debunked model of speciation that claims apes are "less evolved" than humans. They are less evolved in terms of acoustic language.

scott_w 4y ago
But then we’re “less evolved” in terms of grip strength, force generation and any number of areas where other apes beat us. There’s no such thing as “more evolved” or “less evolved,” which is the parent’s point.
- scotty79 4y ago
  Sure but the article talks about communication. If it was talking about grip strength humans might be portrayed like less evolved.
  - automatic6131 4y ago
    >If it was talking about grip strength humans might be portrayed like less evolved. There is, in no sense, any way to talk about less/more evolved. Except for age of lineage, which is the same for all life on earth.
    - pegasus 4y ago
      Why would it depend solely on the duration? Some species stabilize and don't change much over millions of years (like crocodiles), others change rapidly in a comparatively short period of time (like humans).
      - Azek 4y ago
        Are you suggesting we should measure how 'evolved' a species is by the mutation rate in their lineage, or by 'successful' adaption through mutation? I'm not sure but I think the above poster was making the point that saying 'more' or 'less' evolved implies the possibility of a generalised qualitative measuring of mutations.
        pegasus 4y ago
        He didn't even mention mutations or measurements, so you might be reading a bit too much into it there. But yeah, I guess one (or a whole army of scientists) could think up a measurement scheme like that, starting from the last common ancestor. Meanwhile, I propose we continue using words like "evolved" in an informal way since they might turn out to have more meat to them than initially apparent.
        scott_w 4y ago
        No he’s pretty much right. I wasn’t talking about mutations specifically but there’s no objective “more” or “less” when it comes to evolution. Just “different.”
        pegasus 4y ago
        Why not though? To me it sounds dogmatic to make such pronouncements without any evidence. Just because nobody has come up with a formula for something doesn't make it unreal. Phenomena exist outside of our small rationally circumscribed model of the world. Homo sapiens has adapted to a incredible variety of environments, we've pushed ourselves way outside our comfort zone and accumulated and enormous amount of changes in a short period of time. It makes sense that we've accumulated more "genetic experience" this way, that we've grown further than other species. This is how most people use the word "evolved", seems fair enough to me.
_Algernon_ 4y ago
Considering any extant species to be "less evolved" displays a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution doesn't move towards a greater goal. All extant species - whether flatworms or humans - are equally evolved.
- scotty79 4y ago
  I'm definitely less evolved towards the underground movement than mole rat. See what I did here? I chose the specific goal for evolution and evaluated how far evolution brought two species towards this goal.
  - _Algernon_ 4y ago
    >I chose You certainly can choose any arbitrary goal of "evaluating" evolution, but any conclusions you come to are meaningless, because the premise that you can evaluate evolution this way is based on the fundamental misunderstanding of evolution that it works towards a greater goal. This is not true. Hence, any conclusion you make is not true...
    - scotty79 4y ago
      "I'm definitely less evolved towards the underground movement than mole rat." is not meaningless. When I say it you know exactly what I mean. > misunderstanding of evolution that it works towards a greater goal I never said there's any greater intrinsic goal of evolution (except fitting specific niche). I said you may specify goals for the evolution and evaluate how far it got towards reaching that goal. For example, we are not sufficiently evolved towards covid immunity however we are somewhat evolved towards black plague immunity when compared to people who lived in times before black plague.

havelhovel 4y ago

Nothing about this article indicates that anyone thinks apes are “less evolved” than humans. Finding similarities between branches of the evolutionary tree is a common way to build knowledge about shared ancestors. We do the same within our species as well. But if you want to be precise, I wouldn’t say our evolutionary pressures are the “exact same” at this point. There are indications that human evolution has accelerated as a consequence of our spread and technology, while other apes have remained relatively undisturbed in their EEAs up until the last few centuries. https://www.science.org/content/article/human-evolution-speeding https://www.science.org/content/article/human-evolution-spee...