* We are way closer to a bird than to an amoeba, so our shared ancestors with birds are closer in time than our shared ancestors with amoebas.
* We are way closer to a cat than to a bird, so our shared ancestors with cats are closer in time than our shared ancestors with birds.
* We are way closer to an ape than to a cat, so our shared ancestors with apes are closer in time than our shared ancestors with cats.
Of course it does. It doesn't prove ancestry. But genetic similarity implies proximate shared ancestry.
We can take microbes (or fruit flies), subject them to stress, let the survivors reproduce, and watch the genotypes branch into a diverse population. We can then take the observed path of genetic variation and compare it to the relative closeness of the population at the end of the experiment. That's one way we validate the statistical techniques used to relate genetic similarity to probable ancestry.
For example: what if the current genetic diversity on Earth is the result of genetic engineering by ancient aliums?
That's a facile example, but there are serious deeper issues here. The mechanisms of gene transfer are too complex for us to explain presently, including things like viruses, horizontal transfer, etc.
You're assuming a simplistic darwinist model that we already know isn't true.
What if? Obviously they must have engineered it such that current evolution theories have the best predictive value for their achievement. A clever bunch, no doubt, but unfortunately outside of the realm of science because it can't be falsified.
We assume species have a common ancestor because they have similar DNA, and similar DNA is supposed to be proof of a common ancestry.
For purposes of explaining the last 4 million years of human evolution, it’s irrelevant whether conscious or unguided phenomena created forms even as recent as mammals.
> You're assuming a simplistic darwinist model that we already know isn't true
No, nobody is.
Retroviral horizontal transfer is fascinating, but it’s one of many mutation vectors. At the scale of speciation, the specific way a mutation arises can be largely ignored. (Creationism aside.)
The grandparent post makes no unfounded assumptions. It makes unproven ones for a strict definition of “proven”, but that's trivially true since no statements about physical reality can actually be proven, only statements about the relation of abstract concepts can be proven, and then only within a given system of axioms.
> For example: what if the current genetic diversity on Earth is the result of genetic engineering by ancient aliums?
That is indeed an example of an assumption that is not merely unproven but actually unfounded, but it's not an example of one made in the grandparent post so I don't know how it is relevant.
> The mechanisms of gene transfer are too complex for us to explain presently, including things like viruses, horizontal transfer, etc.
There are aspects that lack complete explanation, but that doesn't diminish the power of what we do understand (also, viruses and horizontal gene transfer aren't two things we can't explain, viruses are one of the main mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer.)
> You're assuming a simplistic darwinist model that we already know isn't true.
I see no evidence that that is the case; modern models are not simplistic Darwinism models of the type that involve only transfer by descent.
...And science isn't really about proof, it's about predictive models that are falsifiable but which have resisted falsification. While it hopes to reach or approximate truth, ultimately it's about pragmatic utility.
I am a software developer, dealing with logic all day. This idea is flawed all over. Because we don't know how and why Earth and the ecosystem were created doesn't mean we have to come up with some theory because we need one. Especially not build upon a theory that originated in a time when people believed there was an end to the earth where you could fall off.
Simply say to the kids at school that this is something we still don't know. Nothing to be ashamed of.
No scientist argues this. Nor does any scientist argue that humans evolved from modern apes.
If you're arguing in good faith, an introductory text on microbial evolution is where you'll find approachable answers. They're on human time scales and adequately describes the multi-path mechanism by which mutation and natural selection lead to speciation and evolution.
That would leave you without any empirical sciences, because there has always something we do not know. When Newtonian mechanics where the best we had, they were incomplete, but they are still extremely useful even now that we know they are incomplete. All empirical sciences are essentially some theory that fits the empirical evidenc, but never completely and perfectly.
In my post I'm assuming acceptance of what is commonly accepted in the theory of evolution. If you don't accept that, there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion.
Nothing wrong with studying and figuring out how things work, you should not look at it with an all or nothing attitude. But assuming from the very start that all human species ancestors are some kind of ape is just so ridiculous that it can only sink in when you are properly conditioned(at school) or properly brainwashed. And teaching it to the kids on school is almost criminal IMHO. You want proof, me too, but we don't have it yet. But I promise you it will not be apes, just as we don't fall of the end of the earth.
> In my post I'm assuming acceptance of what is commonly accepted in the theory of evolution. If you don't accept that, there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion.
Many things that are commonly accepted are wrong, not? I do have a point and there is a general discussion about this you cannot stop fortunately.
No one makes that assumption. We know from copious hard evidence that humans and modern apes are closely related, and from more limited hard evidence that there were other animals with features similar to both humans and apes long ago. More recent human ancestors were not apes (they were more human-like), and way distant past ancestors were not apes (they were before even prehistoric apes existed), and none of our ancestors were modern apes (which have evolved into their modern forms since our last common ancestors with them, and those common ancestors were not apes as we know them today). Some human ancestors were prehistoric ape-like animals.
Teaching well-established scientific knowledge in schools is essential, and about as far from criminal as it's possible to get. Your "all human species ancestors are some kind of ape" is not well-established scientific knowledge, but your faulty assumption of how you imagine others' knowledge to work.
You seem to be starting with the assumption that evolution isn't real (based on a primary school reaction?!), rather than deriving the knowledge that it is real from the evidence. (Yes, I have actually done this. I had a summer job deriving evolutionary relationships directly from genetic data. It's not difficult, and the connections between species just pop out of the DNA sequences with a bit of maths.) Evolution wasn't just made up, it was figured out from the evidence, just like gravity, electricity, chemistry, etc. Like all scientific fields, our knowledge of it is not complete (and never will be).
Well established? It's simply not proven, period. You should only teach kids what you are 100% sure about, and when you're not than you have to honestly say that it's an assumption. Otherwise it is not teaching but conditioning.
> Evolution wasn't just made up, it was figured out from the evidence, just like gravity, electricity, chemistry, etc.
Gravity, electricity, etc.. are things you can prove, not the evolution of an ape into a human. I have no clue why so many people desire to believe that our ancestors were apes, I think it's rather pathetic, and most likely due to conditioning.
Forget teaching science at all, then. That's not how scientific knowledge works.
Evolution is not "proven". No empirical science theories are ever "proven". But evolution as a theory is pretty much as good as it gets. Yes, some details get reworked from time to time, but the fundamentals are our best bet.
> Gravity, electricity, etc.. are things you can prove
No. How do you "prove" gravity or electricity?
> not the evolution of an ape into a human
Other people have told you multiple times no-one believes apes evolved into humans, so please stop arguing against this strawman. Modern apes and humans share a common ancestor which was neither ape nor human, and the evidence for this is pretty strong.
You're kidding me? That's what I see with most ape -> human believers, they are 100% sure about things they assume or cannot know. Typical example, thx for that.
> Other people have told you multiple times no-one believes apes evolved into humans, so please stop arguing against this strawman
You:
> That's what I see with most ape -> human believers
Do you see the problem in this exchange?
We still teach what we DO know about gravity especially newtons much simpler but incomplete model.
Technically, we are apes, you and me. Hominids, Great apes.
The degree of certainty we have about that and about core concepts of evolution is such that there's simply no room left for an honest discussion. If we look for places to explore alternative ideas, there're: sci-fi, comics and religion.
For eample, why do humans have a tail bone? Why have muscles attached to the ear that can not move it? Why have wisdom teeth? And there is about a dozen of these things in humans that have no discernable purpose in humans but have a similarity with things in other animals that do serve a purpose.
Evolution gives a model to explain this. Humans evolved from ape-like creatures that had a tail, humans have evolved not to grow the tail but have not quite lost the tail bone. Humans evolved from ape-like creatures that could move their ears. Humans didn't need that and so ears have become fixed without detriment, but have not yet lost the muscles. etc.
How about you come clean and admit you aren't advocating for a different theory about the shape of life's family tree but the abdication of the need to make one to a "higher power", an unscientific theory that literally possess the most notable flaw you are ascribing to biology. That one must indoctrinate kids at a young age in order to convince anyone.