Posted: Oct 15, 2016 8:10 pm
Yeah. I think given the poverty on the fossil record here we are in a position where we can't say with great certainty where the great apes first evolved and in turn we can't say much about the patterns of migration either.
But I think that trying to nail down the migration patterns in the first place isn't what is important, and my response would be that it is an attempt at deflection. A red herring fallacy.
Sometimes there are things we don't know, that doesn't mean the things we DO know suddenly don't count. The lack of fossils that would make primate migrations clear, isn't evidence that they came from an Ark somewhere in the Middle East about 4000 years ago. That would require it's own evidence that wasn't just compatible with, but overwhelmingly indicative of it.
The fact is we can have overwhelming evidence for evolution and common descent from comparative genetics and morphology, even while being patently ignorant about where exactly the groups emerged and how precisely they got to where they are now.
But I think that trying to nail down the migration patterns in the first place isn't what is important, and my response would be that it is an attempt at deflection. A red herring fallacy.
Sometimes there are things we don't know, that doesn't mean the things we DO know suddenly don't count. The lack of fossils that would make primate migrations clear, isn't evidence that they came from an Ark somewhere in the Middle East about 4000 years ago. That would require it's own evidence that wasn't just compatible with, but overwhelmingly indicative of it.
The fact is we can have overwhelming evidence for evolution and common descent from comparative genetics and morphology, even while being patently ignorant about where exactly the groups emerged and how precisely they got to where they are now.