The big problem with the conclusion about an ancestral link is the researchers weren't studying our ancestors, they were looking at contemporary modern apes. Apes whose progenitors evolved side-by-side with humans. How can we be sure the apes haven't adapted their behavior based on their interactions with humans?
Moreover, this type of reasoning reinforces the debunked model of speciation that claims apes are "less evolved" than humans. Modern apes have experienced the exact same amount of evolution as we have. It's only a difference in which ecological niche we each happened to specialize in.
Nothing about this article indicates that anyone thinks apes are “less evolved” than humans. Finding similarities between branches of the evolutionary tree is a common way to build knowledge about shared ancestors. We do the same within our species as well.
But if you want to be precise, I wouldn’t say our evolutionary pressures are the “exact same” at this point. There are indications that human evolution has accelerated as a consequence of our spread and technology, while other apes have remained relatively undisturbed in their EEAs up until the last few centuries.
Why would it depend solely on the duration? Some species stabilize and don't change much over millions of years (like crocodiles), others change rapidly in a comparatively short period of time (like humans).
Are you suggesting we should measure how 'evolved' a species is by the mutation rate in their lineage, or by 'successful' adaption through mutation?
I'm not sure but I think the above poster was making the point that saying 'more' or 'less' evolved implies the possibility of a generalised qualitative measuring of mutations.
He didn't even mention mutations or measurements, so you might be reading a bit too much into it there. But yeah, I guess one (or a whole army of scientists) could think up a measurement scheme like that, starting from the last common ancestor. Meanwhile, I propose we continue using words like "evolved" in an informal way since they might turn out to have more meat to them than initially apparent.
No he’s pretty much right. I wasn’t talking about mutations specifically but there’s no objective “more” or “less” when it comes to evolution. Just “different.”
Why not though? To me it sounds dogmatic to make such pronouncements without any evidence. Just because nobody has come up with a formula for something doesn't make it unreal. Phenomena exist outside of our small rationally circumscribed model of the world. Homo sapiens has adapted to a incredible variety of environments, we've pushed ourselves way outside our comfort zone and accumulated and enormous amount of changes in a short period of time. It makes sense that we've accumulated more "genetic experience" this way, that we've grown further than other species. This is how most people use the word "evolved", seems fair enough to me.
> Why not though? To me it sounds dogmatic to make such pronouncements without any evidence.
The onus is in you to prove one path is objectively “more evolved” than another. All other animals have undergone the same amount of time evolving as humans.
What evidence do you present that we accumulated more genetic changes than any other organisms? Did you catalogue and count the changes?
Nope, the onus is on you to provide evidence if you're going to go against common sense. And all you have is that flimsy "it's the same time stretch" argument. Do you also protest when people call someone immature for their age: "that's impossible, age is the only objectively measurable factor in this equation"? That's not a very convincing argument, even if some people are convinced. Maybe they just feel threatened by the idea.
I didn’t talk about time, I pointed out your measure isn’t evidence because you never actually measured it. Unless you can back up your statement, you’re the one falling back to a subjective measure (public opinion, that you also never proved) to make an objective statement of “fact.”
All you have is a completely unrelated analogy that misrepresents what I said. What does maturity and age have to do with this discussion?
Considering any extant species to be "less evolved" displays a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution doesn't move towards a greater goal. All extant species - whether flatworms or humans - are equally evolved.
You certainly can choose any arbitrary goal of "evaluating" evolution, but any conclusions you come to are meaningless, because the premise that you can evaluate evolution this way is based on the fundamental misunderstanding of evolution that it works towards a greater goal. This is not true. Hence, any conclusion you make is not true...
"I'm definitely less evolved towards the underground movement than mole rat."
is not meaningless. When I say it you know exactly what I mean.
> misunderstanding of evolution that it works towards a greater goal
I never said there's any greater intrinsic goal of evolution (except fitting specific niche). I said you may specify goals for the evolution and evaluate how far it got towards reaching that goal.
For example, we are not sufficiently evolved towards covid immunity however we are somewhat evolved towards black plague immunity when compared to people who lived in times before black plague.
Moreover, this type of reasoning reinforces the debunked model of speciation that claims apes are "less evolved" than humans. Modern apes have experienced the exact same amount of evolution as we have. It's only a difference in which ecological niche we each happened to specialize in.