3 hours ago, studiot said:

Thank you, but then you reverse this by saying

So yes it is a pity and will remain so until you preaching as though you are the sole authority on the subject and can accept that others may have valid thoughts to add.

In point of fact this thread has been going for over 20 years and many folks have made their comments. The original post did not refer to fossils at all, just modern biochemical evidence like DNA and more.

So I don't know why stratigraphy has been introduced at all.

Yes I would agree that the biochemical evidence we can now examine and tailor our evolutionary hypotheses to suit, as it does not suffer the problems associated with some other methods.

BUT

The so called 'fossil record' is a whole different matter.

It has long been known that by its very nature the fossil record is woefully incomplete.

It has long been known that strata vary in thickness (and to some extent composition) with location, ans sometimes are altogether absent.

What do you think are the implications of this for fossils and the fossil record ?

A very serious question to consider is How are fossils formed?

So yes the fossil record can tell us a lot but we have to be very wary as there are often several possible reasons for the absence or presence of certain fossils.

Finally for the purposes of this thread we are talking about a common human anscestor, not the record over hundreds or thousands of millions of years.

I think it would be more accurate to say homonin ancestor rather than common human ancestor, not the record over hundreds or thousands of millions of years" simply because the first human ancestor was Saccorhytus

16 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I think it would be more accurate to say homonin ancestor rather than common human ancestor, not the record over hundreds or thousands of millions of years" simply because the first human ancestor was Saccorhytus

The OP specified “common ancestry with the rest of the apes” so it’s hominin.

On 4/27/2025 at 7:54 PM, Sohan Lalwani said:

Let me repeat this to you, just because something is general, DOES NOT MAKE IT INCORRECT.

But it does though, especially in a scientific discussion; at best it's a temporary truth, that needs to be understood, before you move on to the next temporary truth and etc. until you get your PhD, only then can you decide what's correct, for a brief moment in time... Before the next smartarse tells you your wrong... 😝

And yes, that's an incorrect generalisation. 😉

13 hours ago, swansont said:

The OP specified “common ancestry with the rest of the apes” so it’s hominin.

Also Saccorhytus is clearly not a an ancestor to humans (or any veretbrate). They belong to the protostomia (arthropods, molluscs etc.), whereas humans belong to the deuterostomia. The split was about 700 MYA. And if we go that far back, why not just got straight to LUCA.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But it does though, especially in a scientific discussion; at best it's a temporary truth, that needs to be understood, before you move on to the next temporary truth and etc. until you get your PhD, only then can you decide what's correct, for a brief moment in time... Before the next smartarse tells you your wrong... 😝

And yes, that's an incorrect generalisation. 😉

No, my statement is not incorrect

😝

Point out where it is factually flawed

😝

14 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Also Saccorhytus is clearly not a an ancestor to humans (or any veretbrate). They belong to the protostomia (arthropods, molluscs etc.), whereas humans belong to the deuterostomia. The split was about 700 MYA. And if we go that far back, why not just got straight to LUCA.

The protostome–deuterostome split is typically dated to around 600–670 million years ago, not definitively 700 MYA.

And yes we could go back to LUCA, but since this is a science forum it is better to be specific no?

21 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

No, my statement is not incorrect

😝

Point out where it is factually flawed

😝

The protostome–deuterostome split is typically dated to around 600–670 million years ago, not definitively 700 MYA.

And yes we could go back to LUCA, but since this is a science forum it is better to be specific no?

Except you are specifically wrong, Saccorhytus is in the parallel phylum where you would find humans. Also, note that I said "about" not definitely and also the published range is between 560 MYA (Aris-Brosou et al. 2013 Syst Biol ) to about 988 MYA (Blair et al. 2005 Mol Biol Evol)

Just now, CharonY said:

Except you are specifically wrong, Saccorhytus is in the parallel phylum where you would find humans. Also, note that I said "about" not definitely and also the published range is between 560 MYA (Aris-Brosou et al. 2013 Syst Biol ) to about 988 MYA (Blair et al. 2005 Mol Biol Evol)

Regarding Saccorhytus, yes I was very wrong, I had previously read much older studies.

However, he statement that the protostome–deuterostome split occurred between 560 million years ago (MYA) and about 988 MYA is enormously wrong because it oversimplifies and misrepresents the substantial uncertainty, methodological variability, and wider range of divergence time estimates demonstrated by rigorous molecular clock analyses and fossil evidence.

Molecular clock studies reveal a broader and more variable timeframe for the protostome–deuterostome split than the stated 560–988 MYA range. For example, one well-supported estimate places the divergence at approximately 794 MYA, with a 95% confidence interval extending from 685 to 918 MYA, illustrating significant uncertainty around any point estimate. Other analyses suggest that this event could have occurred anywhere from roughly 600 MYA to over 1,000 MYA, and some molecular estimates even propose divergence times exceeding 1,200 MYA. The narrow range of 560–988 MYA conveniently excludes important credible intervals and consensus estimates within the scientific community, which reflect a wider temporal distribution.

The cited dates likely represent specific selected estimates or bounds rather than robust consensus points. Molecular clock estimates depend critically on calibration choices and models applied; relaxed molecular clocks accommodate varying rates of molecular evolution and often yield broader confidence intervals. The lower boundary of 560 MYA may reflect a minimal fossil calibration constraint rather than a true divergence time, while the upper boundary near 988 MYA may derive from older, less constrained molecular clock calibrations that do not account for lineage-specific rate variation sufficiently. Presenting these as definitive boundaries ignores these nuanced aspects and risks misleading interpretations.

Fossil evidence supports the presence of bilaterian animals, which include protostomes and deuterostomes, around the late Ediacaran and early Cambrian (approximately 550–600 MYA), providing a minimum age for divergence but not necessarily its origin. Molecular analyses typically place the split significantly earlier, implying a potentially long “ghost lineage” period unrepresented in the fossil record. Your statement slightly statement disregards this important distinction by suggesting a narrow divergence window that conflates fossil appearance with actual lineage splitting.Wade, B. D., & Smith, M. J. (2023). Worms and gills, plates and spines: the evolutionary origins and incredible disparity of deuterostomes revealed by fossils, genes, and development. Biological Reviews, Wiley Online Library.

Here are some references:

URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/brv.12908

Dunn, C. W., et al. (2005). Origin of the Eumetazoa: testing ecological predictions of molecular clocks against the Proterozoic fossil record. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(13), 4646–4651.

URL: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0503660102

Bourlat, S. J., et al. (2008). Deciphering deuterostome phylogeny: molecular, morphological and palaeontological perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1496), 1557–1568.

URL: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rstb.2007.2246

Swalla, B. J., & Smith, A. B. (2016). The phylogeny, evolutionary developmental biology, and paleobiology of the Deuterostomia: 25 years of new techniques, new discoveries, and new ideas. Organisms Diversity & Evolution, 16(1), 5-21.

URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13127-016-0270-x

9 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I think it would be more accurate to say homonin ancestor rather than common human ancestor, not the record over hundreds or thousands of millions of years" simply because the first human ancestor was Saccorhytus

Well I find the current bioscience argument interesting in the light of my previous comment, although I must confess that the biological classification scheme has gone way beyond my knowledge.

But I stand by what I said about the intention of the original poster and the rules of this forum, having been instructed by a moderator to keep on topic, here is what was originally posted we should be collectively able to identify the source node mentioned in the title of this thread.

Just now, studiot said:

Well I find the current bioscience argument interesting in the light of my previous comment, although I must confess that the biological classification scheme has gone way beyond my knowledge.

But I stand by what I said about the intention of the original poster and the rules of this forum, having been instructed by a moderator to keep on topic, here is what was originally posted we should be collectively able to identify the source node mentioned in the title of this thread.

I personally find the divergence from new world apes from old world apes extremely interesting

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well I find the current bioscience argument interesting in the light of my previous comment, although I must confess that the biological classification scheme has gone way beyond my knowledge.

But I stand by what I said about the intention of the original poster and the rules of this forum, having been instructed by a moderator to keep on topic, here is what was originally posted we should be collectively able to identify the source node mentioned in the title of this thread.

Being myself, I would just spam counterarguments and citations about human evolution to creationists

But I found that illogical, do you have any ideas?

2 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

However, he statement that the protostome–deuterostome split occurred between 560 million years ago (MYA) and about 988 MYA is enormously wrong because it oversimplifies and misrepresents the substantial uncertainty, methodological variability, and wider range of divergence time estimates demonstrated by rigorous molecular clock analyses and fossil evidence.

Molecular clock studies reveal a broader and more variable timeframe for the protostome–deuterostome split than the stated 560–988 MYA range. For example, one well-supported estimate places the divergence at approximately 794 MYA, with a 95% confidence interval extending from 685 to 918 MYA, illustrating significant uncertainty around any point estimate. Other analyses suggest that this event could have occurred anywhere from roughly 600 MYA to over 1,000 MYA, and some molecular estimates even propose divergence times exceeding 1,200 MYA. The narrow range of 560–988 MYA conveniently excludes important credible intervals and consensus estimates within the scientific community, which reflect a wider temporal distribution.

Have you read what I posted? Because you used a lot of words just to re-iterate pretty much the same points I was making. The way the argument is phrased makes it pretty clear that this is not only an output of an LLM, but that you also did not review it and rephrase it to make it your own argument. For example, I showed studies on molecular clocking highlighting the divergence of time, and you apparently your input resulted in the model to argue that the difference from 560 to 988 is significantly different from 685-1000 despite falling in a roughly similar range of estimates. The 700 MYA estimate was based on a weighted method developed by Kumar's lab, which I consider to be a bit of a gold standard.

But again, that is not the issue. The issue is long-winded automated arguments that ultimately are not beneficial to discussions. Also please refer to https://scienceforums.net/topic/133848-policy-on-aillm-use-on-sfn/

AI-generated content must be clearly marked. Failing to do so will be considered to be plagiarism and posting in bad faith. IOW, you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made.

But I think I will stop here as we are sufficiently off-topic already.

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

Have you read what I posted? Because you used a lot of words just to re-iterate pretty much the same points I was making. The way the argument is phrased makes it pretty clear that this is not only an output of an LLM, but that you also did not review it and rephrase it to make it your own argument. For example, I showed studies on molecular clocking highlighting the divergence of time, and you apparently your input resulted in the model to argue that the difference from 560 to 988 is significantly different from 685-1000 despite falling in a roughly similar range of estimates. The 700 MYA estimate was based on a weighted method developed by Kumar's lab, which I consider to be a bit of a gold standard.

But again, that is not the issue. The issue is long-winded automated arguments that ultimately are not beneficial to discussions. Also please refer to https://scienceforums.net/topic/133848-policy-on-aillm-use-on-sfn/

But I think I will stop here as we are sufficiently off-topic already.

Again, where is evidence I used ai?

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Have you read what I posted? Because you used a lot of words just to re-iterate pretty much the same points I was making. The way the argument is phrased makes it pretty clear that this is not only an output of an LLM, but that you also did not review it and rephrase it to make it your own argument. For example, I showed studies on molecular clocking highlighting the divergence of time, and you apparently your input resulted in the model to argue that the difference from 560 to 988 is significantly different from 685-1000 despite falling in a roughly similar range of estimates. The 700 MYA estimate was based on a weighted method developed by Kumar's lab, which I consider to be a bit of a gold standard.

But again, that is not the issue. The issue is long-winded automated arguments that ultimately are not beneficial to discussions. Also please refer to https://scienceforums.net/topic/133848-policy-on-aillm-use-on-sfn/

But I think I will stop here as we are sufficiently off-topic already.

LLMs almost never say “I was wrong” or admit to having previously read outdated material.

20 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

No, my statement is not incorrect

😝

Of course it is, you just don't understand why... 🙄

15 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

LLMs almost never say “I was wrong” or admit to having previously read outdated material.

Indeed, coincidentally, it was one of your less verbose post's...

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Of course it is, you just don't understand why... 🙄

If it somewhere I corrected myself, then I understand.

Feel free to point it out, and yes I do understand why

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, coincidentally, it was one of your less verbose post's...

Your logic is, the use of neutral language and longer worded sentences/paragraphs=bot

On 4/29/2025 at 2:33 PM, Sohan Lalwani said:

Again, where is evidence I used ai?

By posting a prolonged argument that not really makes the point you think it makes and not using your own voice to do so. Unless you claim to have read can properly contextualize the provided papers. Listen, I see many students trying to write essays or writing arguments and just use LLMs without really thinking. They are very easy to spot especially if the evidence they provide contradict their intended argument.

Folks who just use them without any background thinking no not provide information for the LLMs to build an argument and lack the background to fine tune them. I mentioned above some the signs and it seems that you either have not noticed or are ignoring them.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

By posting a prolonged argument that not really makes the point you think it makes and not using your own voice to do so. Unless you claim to have read can properly contextualize the provided papers. Listen, I see many students trying to write essays or writing arguments and just use LLMs without really thinking. They are very easy to spot especially if the evidence they provide contradict their intended argument.

Folks who just use them without any background thinking no not provide information for the LLMs to build an argument and lack the background to fine tune them. I mentioned above some the signs and it seems that you either have not noticed or are ignoring them.

I too teach various students, I can recognize AI writing. The thing is, I use a school chromebook, and the applicant "Cisco Umbrella" restricts the use of any form of any GPT 4-0 model/other forms of ai. There is also no definitive way to prove I used ai in my arguments either.

56 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

There is also no definitive way to prove I used ai in my arguments either.

This isn’t a court of law. You can be thrown out of this private space at any time for any reason. No proof required. It’s obvious you’re not adapting nor adding value. Quite the opposite, really.

Edited May 1May 1 by iNow

Just now, iNow said:

This isn’t a court of law. You can be thrown out of this probate space at any time for any reason. It’s obvious you’re not adapting nor adding value. Quite the opposite, really.

I have corrected my statements when I was wrong, that is adapting. Perhaps I cannot add any value with fixation on me using AI models or not in my arguements. There is no point in debating this unless there is a definitive way I used AI, which there is not. Lets return to the original topic now please.

Yawn

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yawn

You sleepy?

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yawn

Some very valuable input here

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yawn

Perhaps this man may relate to you.