Ok, I think David missed the thrust of those questions, so I will try to redefine them. -We see a lot of hooplah chatter in the news about our evolution from monkeys or apes, or their evolution from us, or how we all crawled up out of the muck. We also see a lot of strangely fixed dates and proclamations, about which there is not really enough evidence to make such proclamations. -Retrograde analysis of the fossil record is only as good as your ability to date the fossils. Even within the span of a few thousand years, C14 dating becomes quite inaccurate, much more so over the span of millions and millions of years. So, if you are studying two fossils dated approx 20my old, then you have quite a large probability for error, which in turns colors your results. If the dating for the Ape was off by 1 million years in one direction, and the hominid by a million in the other direction, you could be putting the chicken before the egg. Now, that being said, while we know that C14 degrades at a constant rate, we have only been studying that rate for less than a century, so our understanding of the long term degradation rates, or of things that may influence that rate over time, is limited. Note, I am not saying it is wrong, just that we do not have impirical evidence for more than the last hundred years. Even if we test older objects for which we know the time they were created precisely, that still limits us to less than 10k years of human history. So, my question is, how do we know the date of separation? How can we be sure that we are not stuck in a chicken and the egg conundrum that is simply being overlooked in our desire to promote one methodology of looking at the world? -All of the questions pertaining to the degree of difference between say, hominids an apes or chimps, is to say this. There are certain immutable laws that are in effect. Some are universal such as radiation, others are localized and terrestial, such as gravity. In any given epoch of Earth's history, all creatures in a given biosphere had to adapt to certain conditions that were beyond their control. These would have included air quality, temperature, gravity, micro organisms, even food sources. Any creature that had to deal with the same environmental pressures would have by necessity had to have come to extremely similar physiological methods of dealing with it. These methods are limited by certain facts.


• DNA, is the blueprint for these changes and adaptations.

• There are only a limited number of combinations of DNA molecules within the segment of the genetic code allocated to dealing with that particular scenario

• Whatever structure is arrived at must work for the environment

• Whatever structure is arrived at must work for the given phenotype


-So there are some logical assumptions that stem from this:-Creatures in the same habitat would have to conform to the same environmental pressures to varying degrees. Further, the closer the creatures are to each other physiologically, the more likely they are to adapt in the same or extremely similar manner because that is the only viable method of adaptation for that specific pressure.-This suggest that you would see extreme similarities, genetically, between any creatures that posessed similar physiology and shared a similar environment, IRREGARDLESS OF ANCESTERY. -My point is, commonalities in the genetic structure logically do not necessarily imply common decent.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

I remember debates about the missing link from my childhood. My take on it was not "What is the missing link?", but rather, "Is there a missing link at all?"-This is the problem I have with Evolutionary theory and fundamentalist creationist alike: If you are looking at the data with the intention of proving a theory, you will find the proof you are looking for, regardless of whether or not it proves anything or has any explanatory power.-Evolutionary biology looks at hominid and ape specimens, but recent and ancient, looking to prove evolution. So, that is the evidence that they find. Creationist look at those same specimens looking to prove creation, so that is what they find. My understanding of science was that the process was supposed to occur somewhat in reverse. You look at the data without blinkers and blinders, and build a hypothesis based on what you find. Then you try to DISPROVE that hypothesis, not prove it. Science today seems to work the other way around. They come up with a hypothesis, perhaps based on data, perhaps on someone elses interpretation of data, or perhaps based on a personal agenda, and then try to PROVE that hypothesis instead of disprove it.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

DAVID: A final species has to start somewhere, and have some directionality. If you have my viewpoint of pre-planning, it all makes sense.-How do we know that any species is "final"? What would you expect the Earth and humans to be like in, say, 3 million years' time? But if you mean the species we have now, including ourselves, your God must also have pre-planned chimps, sparrows, ants, the duck-billed platypus, and every other species in existence. How does this prove that humans are the "chosen" species? In this context, your previous arguments concerning the uniqueness of human consciousness and achievements strike a very real chord in me, but I cannot see any relevance to your beliefs in Filler's extraordinary thesis that bipedal apes = "humans" = humans, and therefore humans evolved into modern apes. See below.-DAVID: Your problem is your allegiance to Darwin.-No, my problem is Filler's use of language. On 06 April at 16.18 you wrote: "Monkeys first, then a vertebrae change to indicate a hominin line, from which a gorilla line and a chimp line branches off. Of course Darwin was correct. Filler's discovery supports this."-Filler's "discovery" (not theory?) supports Darwin if you classify the hominins as hominins (which you do) or as apes (which Filler does), but it brings in a sensational new dimension if you classify them as humans (which Filler does). You have hit the nail on the head when you say Filler is locating what we both used to call "the missing link". If we replace his "ape" and "human" with "common ancestors", his four bipedal fossils fit in perfectly with Darwin's theory of common descent. Then instead of his sensational "existing apes have a human ancestor" and Amazon's even more explicit "apes descended from humans and not the other way round", we have "humans and modern apes have common ancestors". But that means goodbye to the self-proclaimed "revolutionary" dimension of Filler's theory. -*******
David: Nobel scientist, Dr Phillips, and his thoughts:-http://uip.edu/en/articles-en/ordinary-science-ordinary-faith-Thank you for this wonderful article, which I'm sure Tony and Casey will love too. Beautifully written and argued, and a tonic in this day and age of strident irrationality. I'm particularly struck by his absolute honesty ... he makes no pretence at knowing the answers to the mysteries that we've all been puzzling over. Even if he is a practising Christian, David, you may well be blood brothers! Although I can't share his faith, he made me immensely proud to be human, and my seat on the fence is all the warmer and softer for reading his thoughts.

DAVID: The first hominins were tree-dwelling and entered the savannah when their uprightness allowed it. Key alteration in evolution theory: Upright BEFORE savannah.-dhw: However, supposing the innovation (i.e. the mutation to uprightness) was not random but was a direct response to environmental pressure? Then we have a very different scenario. As I've suggested in earlier posts, one or more localized events in isolated areas might have destroyed the forests and changed them into savannahs. In order to survive, the monkeys HAD to come down from the trees. -DAVID: And having to stoop over to walk on their knuckles how would that work in the savannah? The arms remained long until Lucy at two-three million years ago. You must think of whole body adaptations. The fossil hunters also study paleoenvironment. No one has proposed your scenario of an earlier savannah. I think your thinking has taken you down a rabbit hole. Granted your reasoning is reasonable, but, if we can trust the science, it didn't happen your way.-Can we trust the science? We have a whole thread now devoted to that very subject. Besides, what science? Is there any scientific consensus on what happened? How do you know that Lucy was the first short-armed hominid? Is the fossil record complete? Even Lucy's locomotion is a matter of controversy:-Wikipedia: There is considerable debate regarding the locomotor behaviour of A. afarensis. Some believe that A. afarensis was almost exclusively bipedal, while others believe that the creatures were partly arboreal. The anatomy of the hands, feet and shoulder joints in many ways favour the latter interpretation.-But more to the point, you have argued that the first hominins went down into the savannah after a mutation that led to uprightness. Are you now suggesting that their uprightness was also accompanied by short arms? Clearly not if Lucy really was the first to have short arms! How upright is upright? All the scenarios are based on the same premise that a degree of uprightness conveyed an advantage. No matter whether it came via a random (or divinely planned) mutation or via an adaptation to new living conditions, the rest of the body would still have had to adapt to the new position (= your whole body adaptations). There is no way round this development if we believe in common descent. I'm pleased that you find my reasoning reasonable, because your alternative seems to me less reasonable: a chance or pre-planned mutation which leads the ex-monkey (still with long arms) to look for a new environment, versus my change in the environment which forces monkeys to adapt or die.
 
I've done some googling, and as usual found nothing but "may", "might", "perhaps". I copied and pasted the article below (but then couldn't find it again!) as an example (a) of scientists disagreeing, and (b) of some researchers favouring the theory that the expansion of the savannah forced early hominids to leave the trees and walk upright.-Did the first bipedal hominids live in the savannah or the forest?
 
Last year, a team of scientists announced that Ardi, a pre-human fossils dating back 4.4 million years ago, had lived in a wooded area, an idea that was revolutionary because it contradicted previous theories. However, according to new findings from another team of scientists who examined the exact same data, the environment of the first bipedal primates was more likely a savannah. -In 2009, a team from the University of California at Berkeley in the U.S. published in the journal Science data suggesting that the hominids of the species Ardipithecus ramidus, to which the Ardi fossil belongs, had lived in the woods of Africa. But recently another study published in the same magazine and based on the very same data contradicts this theory.-"Our team reviewed the data published by White and his colleagues last October [2009] and found that their data does not support this conclusion," said Naomi Levin, co-author of the new study, adding that the data indicated the opposite, that Ardipithecus ramidus lived in a savannah composed of mostly herbs and low-lying plants. -The environment in which these pre-humans lived is important to understand their evolution. The call of the savannah theory says that the expansion of this type of terrain was the reason these early hominids left the trees and began walking upright. The theory of life in a wooded setting, however, would require finding a new explanation for the developmental changes. -"If the habitat of Ardipithecus ramidus were savannahs where grass made up 60% of the biomass," says Levin, "we can not rule out the possibility that the open environment play an important role in human origins and, in particular, the origin of bipedal walking." He concludes: "Neither the public nor the scientific community should accept an exclusively forest habitat for Ardipithecus ramidus and the origin of bipedal walking because the data does not support it."-The authors of the research in 2009 have already responded in another article, defending the methodology and validity of their analysis and indicating that the area where the Ardipithecus ramidus lived was very diverse and that it is wrong to generalize about a single type of environment. -Would you still say that science leaves no room for the scenario I have put forward?