Replies

angryoldfatman: "Let's stretch the metaphor,"

Metaphors tend to be brittle, easily broken, but... OK...

angryoldfatman: "Like I said, branches lying all around, but not on the tree.
Some so-called botanists tell us all of these branches fell off this particular tree, and (coincidentally) there's only one branch left."

No, not "so-called botanists", actual trained biologists.
Of course, both tree and branches are metaphors, intended to represent the data.
So, if you imagine you can "see" branches, then you must also "see" the tree they fell from.

angryoldfatman: "But they keep discovering that the limbs are maple, cedar, and whatnot, instead of the oak tree they supposedly fell off of."

No, every branch clearly comes from the same tree, the only question is, when & where did it first branch off?

The primate "trunk", so to speak, dates back to the age of dinosaurs, 85+ million years ago.
The first Old World Monkeys seem to have branched off around 30 million years ago.
Great Apes branched again some 20 million years ago.
Our line departed the Apes around 8 million years ago.
From there, fossils representing some two dozen pre-human or early-human species & subspecies have been discovered with:
The first anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens appear circa 200,000 years ago.

However, while a metaphorical tree seems helpful in visualizing evolution, nobody pretends all of its trunks, branches & points of connection have yet been found.

Here's one way to look at it:

And here's another way to see it:

angryoldfatman: "And not only that, but there's that one branch that is practically the whole tree now, with no other branches attached to the tree at all."

No, there are many other "branches" clearly visible, of which I've mentioned some above.
For example, on the branch of Great Apes we find Chimpanzees, Gorillas & Orangutans, of which Chimpanzees share some 98% of our own DNA.
So we are clearly on the same evolutionary "branch".

angryoldfatman: "That one branch assuredly couldn't have sucked all the sap from those other branches that happened to coexist, could they?
And even if they could, can we pinpoint the events that killed off those 20 something branches before the branches started competing amongst each other?"

Fossils representing dozens of pre-human or archaic-human species & subspecies have been found.
That these are closely related to us was demonstrated by analysis of Neanderthal DNA revealing them not just nearly-identical but also interbreeding with our own ancestors some 50,000+ years ago.

As for why all those other branches died off, of course we don't know, can only speculate on changing environment & competition from more advanced species, like our own ancestors.

Does that sound unreasonable to you?

You contradict yourself somewhat.

If these evolutionary scientists (”botanists”) can’t tell us what events caused what effect, and exactly where the evolutionary branches diverge (witness the debate between Homo erectus, Homo rudolfensis, Homo gautengensis, Homo ergaster and Homo habilis, for instance), then I feel “so-called” is an accurate description.

I’ve seen academics in what we refer to as evolutionary science simply make narratives up for theses. Hell, if Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, and Java Man can fool generations of suckers out there, then how reliable can they be?

You posted:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For example, on the branch of Great Apes we find Chimpanzees, Gorillas & Orangutans, of which Chimpanzees share some 98% of our own DNA.
So we are clearly on the same evolutionary “branch”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There’s some other things. Some say 98%, others say 96%, and some point out that we share a majority of DNA with bananas.

So we are from the same branch as bananas, too (if you pardon the pun). Who knew?

Fascinating and quite the accomplishment for humans to discover it.

“However, while a metaphorical tree seems helpful in visualizing evolution, nobody pretends all of its trunks, branches & points of connection have yet been found.”

I appreciate the discussion on this topic. I think it an understatement to say that all points of connection have not been found. From the tree you posted, I don’t see any points of connection (common ancestors) — only cousins or siblings. There is assumed to be a species at the node points where the branches split, correct? But none are identified. Maybe this tree is too dated?