I’d leave out the “missing” part – after all, if it’s there then it’s not missing. At any rate it’s just another discovered link in the messy net of evolution. It will be interesting to see where it’s placed on the tree – is it somewhere in the lineage of modern humans or an offshoot of some other ape branch (possibly one which has no extant representative)?
I wouldn’t use terminology like “half human half ape” either – people who don’t understand evolution imagine something like the crocoduck. The “humakey” or something. Besides, humans are 100% ape, so the half-and-half thing sounds rather silly.
I think R. Dawkins had a pretty good explanation of evolution in his book The Greatest Show on Earth. Each generation of a population is slightly different from the preceeding generation. Over (very very) long periods of time, a generation (as a group) will be noticeably different from the original population. However, from each generation to the next you will not see any obvious changes. If you split a population into two groups and kept them away from eachother (some human populations have been isolated for a few tens of thousands of years and that’s apparently not long enough for humans), the descendants of each group will likely be noticeably different from eachother and won’t be able to cross-breed either – they would be distinct species. There are a number of known extant animals which have obvious physical differences and some difficulty cross-breeding; those animals had a common ancestor and are drifting apart; as reproductive success is very limited, as nature would have it those animals will become distinct species in time (if they don’t become extinct first). The mule is one such example – Equus cavallus (horse) + Equus asinus (donkey). The name given by biologists (to the donkey and horse) even suggests an evolutionary relationship.
I’m reading that as well. And yes, just the way you say things often gives young earth creationists fodder to chew on because they have no concept of how to separate the facts from figurative speaking that describes facts.
April 15th, 2010 at 3:31 am
board ? bored?
April 15th, 2010 at 5:00 am
I’d leave out the “missing” part – after all, if it’s there then it’s not missing. At any rate it’s just another discovered link in the messy net of evolution. It will be interesting to see where it’s placed on the tree – is it somewhere in the lineage of modern humans or an offshoot of some other ape branch (possibly one which has no extant representative)?
I wouldn’t use terminology like “half human half ape” either – people who don’t understand evolution imagine something like the crocoduck. The “humakey” or something. Besides, humans are 100% ape, so the half-and-half thing sounds rather silly.
I think R. Dawkins had a pretty good explanation of evolution in his book The Greatest Show on Earth. Each generation of a population is slightly different from the preceeding generation. Over (very very) long periods of time, a generation (as a group) will be noticeably different from the original population. However, from each generation to the next you will not see any obvious changes. If you split a population into two groups and kept them away from eachother (some human populations have been isolated for a few tens of thousands of years and that’s apparently not long enough for humans), the descendants of each group will likely be noticeably different from eachother and won’t be able to cross-breed either – they would be distinct species. There are a number of known extant animals which have obvious physical differences and some difficulty cross-breeding; those animals had a common ancestor and are drifting apart; as reproductive success is very limited, as nature would have it those animals will become distinct species in time (if they don’t become extinct first). The mule is one such example – Equus cavallus (horse) + Equus asinus (donkey). The name given by biologists (to the donkey and horse) even suggests an evolutionary relationship.
April 15th, 2010 at 6:07 am
@sutashau: Thanks
April 15th, 2010 at 6:07 am
@Mad Scientist: Good points. I’ve got to get that book on my reading list.
April 16th, 2010 at 6:14 am
I’m reading that as well. And yes, just the way you say things often gives young earth creationists fodder to chew on because they have no concept of how to separate the facts from figurative speaking that describes facts.