Hacker News Reader

Comment by rosegarden0 | Hacker News Reader

I find it fascinating how at some point, someone came up with the theory of us being apes, then evolved into humans, where it’s clear that that narrative is no where near definitive. Then why do these types of findings always get forced in that narrative, followed up with statements like “which we didn’t thought was possible”. Starting with a fixed narrative and looking at findings from a narrow perspective makes us overlook things - and perhaps - alternative theories.

View on HN

Ironically, I think the only way you could possibly have written this comment (earnestly) is if you started with a fixed narrative and looked at findings from a narrow perspective.

I wouldn't put words in this person's mouth. They might be a creationist like you are inferring, but I've heard some amazingly thought out ideas from the Burning Man crowd, which have a number of participants on our board.

We are apes. There is no doubt whatsoever about that narrative.

Is there no doubt because that is what is taught, or because there is evidence that one species has been concretely observed as it evolves into another completely different species?

There is no such thing as "one species that evolves into another completely different species".

Each generation is a tiny bit different compared to the previous. Split a population of animals into two based on a geographical divider or so, make the circumstances slightly different so that slightly different traits give better survivability in each group, and over a long long time they'll drift apart. Then humans come along and decide they're different enough to call them different species.

But if the original species was an ape, then both new groups are still apes. Just like they stay mammals, just like they stay arthropods.

We can do genetic analysis that shows the above to have happened all the time, and by looking at which genes two species have in common and which have diverged we can estimate how long ago the last common ancestors lived.

And the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees is more recent than the last common ancestor of humans and orang utans (that ancestor is also the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and orang utans, of course).

So if chimpanzees and orang utans are apes, then we must also be apes.

> we can estimate how long ago the last common ancestors lived.

That is an estimate. That is not concrete evidence. Since humans don't live long enough to observe major evolution then it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as to believe in other theories.

Extrapolating based on known evidence and having a fossil record to confirm that extrapolation is not faith, it's evidence based logical reasoning. I didn't see the sun rise on the 3rd of June 1924, but it's not faith to believe that it did so.

> it's not faith to believe that it did so.

Doesn't believing require faith? Extrapolating requires belief that the correct conclusion is being reached.

Which alternative theory do you find most plausible?

Would it be a popular religious belief, or something a little more unusual?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com