[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

"more evolved" (wasThe Summers Theory)

Tony Canning wrote:

<<Yes - presumably the calculation of the chimp/human divergence date ASSUMES
<<equal rates of mutation in each line. I don't see what other assumption we
<<The human apomorphs seem to be largely due to changes in genes controlling
<<We may be more 'ancestral' than chimps with other genes.

O.K., Tony: perhaps we are equally or even less evolved than chimps if we
consider just ADN changes, but this is not the question for me. I'm talking
about morphologycal and behavioral changes. Genes can mutate without effect.
I'm interested in the effects of genetic change, not in genetic change itself. 
Dinogeorge wrote:

> Since the common ancestor of chimps, gorillas, and humans has not yet been
> identified in the fossil record, it's a bit premature to comment that humans
> are "more evolved" than chimps or gorillas. It is presently more likely that
> chimps, gorillas, and humans are all about equally "evolved" from the common
> ancestor (whatever that may mean).

That may mean simply change. "More evolved" is not a politically incorrect
expression, don't be afraid using it :-) The common ancestor of apes and humans
has not been identified, but early australopithecines can teach us something
about it -their head, brain and face were chimp-like, and their bipedal posture
is clearly an apomorfy. Definitely, we were true apes long time ago. For the
same reasons, the common ancestor of theropods and vultures was a
unidentified-true-theropod ¿wasn't it?.  
                                              Ernesto J. Carmena