Counting generations in one's family tree

[Eloi]

Thinking about the genetic inheritance from my earliest ancestors to me ... it occurs to me that if my family had recorded ancestors with the same care that Jews and other ancients did from the beginning of humanity, I might find many interesting details about who they were and where my relatively distant ancestors lived, before I was born on an island in the Cuban archipelago.

I could calculate with some degree of accuracy and objectivity how many generations I would have to go back in my family tree until I reached the creation of the first human couple. As far as I know no known human civilization (for all that that word entails in the sense of human development) has been dated with certainty before the year of the Biblical creation of Adam and Eve, around 4025 BC.

Evolutionist friend, tell me: what would be the number of generations that you would have to go back in your family tree, until your ancestor is no longer an intelligent human being but a simple ape that can be considered as a common animal?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #29]

They are guesses. They're still guesses. They're just much better guesses.

Especially if they date the teeth, bones, and sediments, and get a close match on all.

Direct dating via the methods used has uncertainty (hence the 100K range given), but is not "guessing." The prior estimates were much more in the "guess" category, based on what turned out to be wrong assumptions (ie. that such small cranial volumes, and arboreal features, implied much older ages as this had not been seen before).

This was a hugely important and large find, so of course everyone wanted to know how old they were and what it meant for adding pieces to the human evolution puzzle. While waiting for direct dating results, people tried to make estimates using other approaches and those turned out to be wrong. It was presented in post 17 as if the scientists involved in all of this were knuckleheads who actually dated the fossils to 1-2 million years, then willy-nilly changed their minds to a much more recent age range. That is not at all what happened.

Of the four articles referenced that referred to the pre-2017 date, one is behind a paywall, but at least one other does use language that suggests less certainty about the date.

What it suggests, however, is that the morphogenic analysis used to construct many evolutionary trees, and even parsimony and Bayes analyses, are subject to massive errors.

Morphological analysis had people saying a red panda was a bear. And they still can't quite understand why it is that Eastern (Europe/Asia/Africa) and Western (N/S America) cats shouldn't have evolved too far from one another to successfully mate, but they haven't, and they can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumapard
Modern geneticists find them more interesting because the leopard and the cougar were not considered to be closely enough related to produce offspring.

[Eloi]

In the history of evolutionists and their dating, that of the so-called Homo naledi is not the only one that they have changed so drastically.

I have read about several of them that I will comment on at some point. But whoever wishes can do an investigation about it. The acolytes of evolutionists will always give you some "scientific" explanation of why such changes. Meditate on those also, you can learn a lot out of those explanations

Of these things the defenders of the theorists of evolution do not speak much.

[Clownboat]

In the history of evolutionists and their dating, that of the so-called Homo naledi is not the only one that they have changed so drastically.

I have read about several of them that I will comment on at some point. But whoever wishes can do an investigation about it. The acolytes of evolutionists will always give you some "scientific" explanation of why such changes. Meditate on those also, you can learn a lot out of those explanations

Of these things the defenders of the theorists of evolution do not speak much.

When humans discovered that the sun was the center of our solar system and not the earth, we had to wait for the older generation to die off while we educated the younger for such information to then be accepted.

I get it, some people just cannot accept the fact of evolution. However, humans will continue to educate and these others will eventually be dead and gone.

It's a sad reality that this is what it takes for valid scientific theories to be accepted, but pet god theories obviously control some peoples lives and therefore they are unable to let go of them. Until they are dead of course.

Evolution, like what's at the center of our solar system is just another example of this phenomenon. Education alone will not cut it for some. For those, we have to wait for them to die off. It slowed progress a bit I'm sure by having some humans not willing to let go of the previously held geocentric model, but it is what it is and humans will do what humans do. In the end, they died off and humans progressed eventually and it was then accepted that the sun was at the center. The same thing is taking place now with evolution. Evolution is a known fact, but we literally have to wait for a certain portion of our population to die off as they are unwilling to accept notions that go against their preferred religious beliefs.

[brunumb]

When humans discovered that the sun was the center of our solar system and not the earth, we had to wait for the older generation to die off while we educated the younger for such information to then be accepted.

I get it, some people just cannot accept the fact of evolution. However, humans will continue to educate and these others will eventually be dead and gone.

Is there a downside to that Clownboat? What if the young get ideologically captured by something that is scientifically incorrect and rely on the same course of action? Just sayin'.

[Clownboat]

When humans discovered that the sun was the center of our solar system and not the earth, we had to wait for the older generation to die off while we educated the younger for such information to then be accepted.

I get it, some people just cannot accept the fact of evolution. However, humans will continue to educate and these others will eventually be dead and gone.

Is there a downside to that Clownboat?

Yes there is a downside. It slows progress when groups are immune to new information.

What if the young get ideologically captured by something that is scientifically incorrect and rely on the same course of action? Just sayin'.

Then naturally, our young would get captured by this scientifically incorrect thing as it is assumed that it will happen as part of your question. You leave no room to answer this question in another way.
Example in case it's just a wording issue:
Q. What happens if you fall and scratch your knee?
A. You fall and scratch your knee.

What mechanism are you considering that would allow something that is scientifically incorrect to be captured by our young? Outside of religions and private schooling of course.
Keep in mind, I'm arguing that this is a reality (that we wait for the older generation to die off while we educated the younger), not that it has or doesn't have downsides. It just is what it is.

[brunumb]

What mechanism are you considering that would allow something that is scientifically incorrect to be captured by our young? Outside of religions and private schooling of course.

Precisely religion and schooling, not necessarily private. Gender ideology has all the hallmarks of a religion in the way it is being propagated and young people are the primary focus. I may be out of step with reality, but sex and gender is binary as far as I am concerned and the science behind it is as firmly established as evolution.

[Eloi]

Has any evolutionist meditated on what was the mechanism by which species inherited the instinct that makes them repeat behaviors of all kinds automatically?

Let us mention a well-known example: animal migrations. There are birds, butterflies, fish, etc., that repeat very long migrations year after year, and sometimes even die in a distant place, like monarch butterflies, and their descendants that never experienced the journey, return to the same beginning where the cycle begins. Who started the endless cycles of migratory animals? How and when did these endless cycles begin and how did the inheritance mechanism of these cycles from parents to descendants begin?

God made it.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #37]

Has any evolutionist meditated on what was the mechanism by which species inherited the instinct that makes them repeat behaviors of all kinds automatically?

Why yes they have:

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/news/the- ... migration/

You really should try this new thing called Google (you can find it at www.google.com). It is a very handy search engine for the internet, that can take you to information about whatever subject you type in (such as "evolution of bird migration"). You can even read the information in multiple links that are supplied and get a range of different descriptions, sources, etc. A huge amount of the knowledge humans have accumulated over the millenia is contained on the World Wide Web, and easily accessible with just a mouse click. It is a shame that some people ignore it all when the effort to access it is nearly nothing.

God made it.

More preaching.

[Eloi]

You should try and think by yourself at least once.

This is a debate forum, not a conference room. You are preaching all the time, making apology for evolutionism ... You are are not debating of anything or presenting any proof of anything. You are pretending atheists are smarter than believers, and that all scientists are evolutionists. All that is false. You are appealing to many falacies to be taken seriously.

Have a good day.

[Eloi]

I remember an evolutionist considered a luminary in her field, giving a lecture that surely must have cost her fans an arm and a leg just listening to it... I spent almost 45 minutes watching the video when it was posted online. It made me laugh so much, and at the same time feel so angry for having wasted my time so miserably, listening to a woman who justified a growth of the apes's brain with the myth that when those apes discovered fire and learned how to cook food, they had more time to spend thinking and their brain grow and they became smarter. What idiocy!

That's the kind of lectures that fans of evolutionists are used to.