Hub of Reason

12:09 PM

@HappySpoon I would have thought the common ancestor of man and modern apes would also be considered an ape, at least under a cladistic perspective. If not, you end up with the situation where the common ancestor of chimps and gorillas cannot be an ape. As our nearest relative is the chimp, its common ancestor (and hence ours) must be an ape for chimps and gorillas to be both descended from apes.

Sklivvz

1:24 PM

We are apes, thus, we evolved from apes, we share a common ancestor with other apes and so on.

Ape

Apes (Hominoidea) are a branch of Old World tailless anthropoid catarrhine primates native to Africa and Southeast Asia and distinguished by a wide degree of freedom at the shoulder joint indicating the influence of brachiation. There are two main branches: the gibbons, or lesser apes; and the hominids or great apes. Lesser apes (Hylobatidae) include four genera and sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon, and the siamang, all native to Asia. They are highly arboreal and bipedal on the ground. They have lighter bodies and smaller social groups than great apes. The Hominidae include...

once, the term was used for all Hominoidea who were not genus Homo, but it didn't make any sense, so it was decided to use the term apes for all Hominoidea, including genus Homo.

user35386

4:11 PM

The naming of the hierarchical groups around us is pretty confusing: Hominidae, Homininae, Hominini, Hominoidea.

user35386

Stack Exchange

0

Q: Why was my "theoretical answer" deleted while others without evidence allowed to stand?

Here's my answer. Here're the other answers. Why is mine considered "theoretical" despite real world examples, while the other two, based upon absolutely nothing observed by economists, are allowed to stand?

Dikran Marsupial

@Articuno Alternatively, the similarity of the names suggests the lack of difference between groups! The diagram illustrates my point, it seems reasonable to suggest that Chimps and Gorillas are both descended from apes, which implies Homininae is a group of apes. However in that case man is descended from apes as man is also descended from Homininae.

user35386

Well, Hominoidea is the largest group such that all its members are apes.

user35386

4:27 PM

So you're correct. but you could say the same about gibbons or orangutans

user35386

Chimps and Gorillas did descend from a common ancestor that was an ape.

user35386

Gibbons and orangutans descended from a common ancestor that was an ape.

Dikran Marsupial

yes, I only chose homo, pan and gorilla to keep to a minimal subtree of the cladogrm.

user35386

Humans and gibbons descended from a common ancestor that was an ape... etc.

user35386

Right, cool.

user35386

4:35 PM

Ah... just followed the conversation back to your original comment about proof of evolution "from apes".

user35386

But yeah, your point definitely still stands. It's just the terms are a bit confusing and misused/misunderstood by people.

Dikran Marsupial

it may seem like pedantry, but the difference between proof and corroboration is quite important as good science really needs self-skepticism, so training yourself to really avoid overstatement is good training for science. The problem with proof in climate change is that for some real proof (rather than the colloquial sense) is the only thing that will sway their opinion, and it is something science cannot provide.

not always easy to apply in practice though!

user35386

yeah, double standards

user35386

when a scientific conclusion is practically inconvenient, raise the standard

Dikran Marsupial

In my view, the science and practicality need to be kept separate. If practicality is the reason you don't want to take some action, then that should be the reason, rather than bending the science to fit.

user35386

4:42 PM

absolutely

user35386

and have full awareness of the trade-offs

user35386

I don't get this question: skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22476/…

user35386

@Sklivvz I think it's a bit hyperbolic to use a banner saying the answer doesn't cite any references or sources, when in fact, the answer cites some references or sources.

Dikran Marsupial

I don't see how you could have an answer based on reliable references. While it would cause a big destabilisation of food chains, Malthus' law means that things would find a (probably very different) equilibrium before very long, and being adaptable mankind is likely to survive it (as a species). We can (and do) eat insects.

Sklivvz

@Articuno well, sure, but the answer hinges on a single point and you haven't referenced it

normal exchanges can't be manipulated because they are controlled. bitcoin exchanges, not so much. you need to reference that

all the rest frankly obvious to me

user35386

4:55 PM

The answer didn't hinge on that, in my opinion, but I deleted the answer nonetheless

user35386

In any case, I think a tweak to the banner wording would be useful if we're going to use it more generally like this.

Sklivvz

@Articuno i've asked for such a tweak the moment they gave us the banners

user35386

and nothing?

user35386

that's too bad

Sklivvz

The [citation needed] post should be generalized so that it applies both to totally unreferenced posts, to posts which need more references and to posts with inaccurate references. E.g. "This post does not contain enough pertaining references from reputable sources, or the references are not adequate to the claims." — Sklivvz ♦ Sep 26 '11 at 8:44

Meh, most people "get it" after the first time. It's a nice to have

let it go, not worth bickering

user35386

5:13 PM

okay

AJ Henderson

5:29 PM

@Articuno - done

user35386

Thanks :)

Stack Exchange

5:41 PM

0

Q: Why is this answer about inflation's effects upon wealth considered unsourced?

For this question, I posted this answer. This message is appended to the bottom: This post does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this post by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. There are numerous cites to published...

support references

user35386

Have any of you read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"

Stack Exchange

0

Q: Why are comments that disparage Christians, military, and/or conservatives not deleted?

I've noticed that many offensive, attacking comments towards Christians, the military, and conservatives are allowed to remain, and are even heavily upvoted. I've flagged these comments, but they still remain. I'm sure it's just a software bug and these bad apples are mere clustering statistica...

support flagging

Sklivvz

@cincinnatus are you around?

Dikran Marsupial

6:13 PM

@cincinnatus wrote "Ah, does that mean that none of his movies should be taken seriously," (i) not completely no, as humour (which often involves hyperbole) is part of what he does (ii) it would be daft to take any movie completely seriously - they are primarily entertainment.

forget that, comment now (correctly) deleted, sorry to have caused extra effort for mods.

Mad Scientist

@DikranMarsupial It is only one button to click to nuke all comments on a post. Deleting a large non-constructive comment thread isn't much work, only when we have to pick an choose individual comments it gets rather tedious

HappySpoon

7:54 PM

@Sklivvz So, apes are descended from apes. that make sense!

Oddthinking

8:23 PM

@Articuno I own a copy. From memory, I attempted to read it - maybe 15 or 20 years ago? - but found it a bit too much of a slog to finish all 700 pages. It was the first time I had heard about Tulipmania.

HappySpoon

8:42 PM

Anyway, think it's a term we should avoid, and use Hominidae or Homininae instead. Using the term apes gives fuel to creationists.

user35386

9:17 PM

I didn't realize how much a supporter of skepticism Seth MacFarlane is

user35386

He produced the recent Cosmos

user35386

and "In 2013 the Library of Congress announced the opening of the Seth MacFarlane Collection of the Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan Archive which includes more than 1,500 boxes of donated material".

Transcript for