In a court of law, that would be considered "circumstantial evidence" which rarely on its own merit, results in a conviction.
Science and law are not the same thing. And I can't see how the combination of the fossil record, various types of dating, AND genetic research is merely "circumstantial." What then is real data?
As this is a theory with no evidence conclusive to back the supposition up, I'd have to call it as it stands...not proven (yet). There are arguments now that state Neandrathal walked side by side with and even bred with homo sapien sapien as little as 40,000 years ago...
No, it is not a theory that dogs/wolves split later than humans/primates. It is really very clear. Dogs were domesticated by humans around 12,000 years ago, as evidenced by the fossil record and pre-historical cultural artifacts. They were one of the first domesticates, but on the outside, you're looking at perhaps 15000 years ago. They are the same genetically as wolves, but like all domesticated animals, what we basically did was breed for arrested development, so dogs are like goofy and compliant wolf pups for their entire lives, rather than maturing into the smarter, more dangerous variety. You can see this even moreso in horses, as the oldest breeds are also some of the more difficult to train and work with as they tend to be more naturally self-sufficient and intelligent.
As for Neanderthals... a few basic facts are in order. It is currently debated whether or not Neanderthals and modern H. sapiens interbred. What is not debated is the implications of this. Those that think Neanderthals and us hooked up do not think the two were different species, but rather different varieties of the same species, which is why they call us H. sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals are H. sapiens neanderthalensis. Thsoe that disagree and think they did not interbreed say we are H. sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals are H. neanderthalensis. This is an important distinction as the successful production of fertile offspring negate an important defining factor for separating species, hence the movement of nomenclature from the sub-species (varietal) level to the species level in this example.
But the point there is that the DNA still contained enough compatible attributes to even allow for such continuations of breeding, after long periods of isolation.
What is "long periods of isolation" is relative. Evolutionary time, like geologic time, is not like our sense of time. And even so, the argument doesn't hold water because evolution is based on random mutation interacting with environmental variables. This means some species have changed very little over time (horseshoe crabs) while others have changed a lot (apes in general). It isn't one single timeline for every species, genera, etc. It depends on how random mutuations interact with environment.
And genetically speaking, dogs, wolves, horses and donkeys have the same chromosonal numbers...Man and apes do not. But all primates other than man, do share the same number of chromosones...
And the point is? Mutations can happen at a genomal level (entire chromosomes) as well as point or chromosomal (parts of chromosomes). Which would explain a lot about why humans and apes can't interbreed, but means nothing in terms of our lineage.
To assume one is not knowledgable due to a lack of PHD, would be...an assumption I would not be willing to entertain.
That isn't what I said. I said most people (in my experience) who do not have at least a couple years of advanced biology or genetics (said nothing of PhD, but rather upper division undergrad coursework) tend to be poorly educated about how population genetics works, the details of evolutionary theory, and details concerning dating methods, morphology, etc. And this means that they often completely misunderstand how evolution actually works and what scientists have actually uncovered.
A good analogy is my understanding of quantum mechanics and string theory. I've read about it and watched PBS shows for years, but I simply don't kid myself that I actually have a good enough handle on physics to grasp the evidence and debates in that field. Now, if I put in a few years of education into it, maybe I'd get a bit closer. I'm not an expert on human evolution- it isn't my subdiscipline within anthropology. But I know the basics well enough and have seen the evidence up close to realize that most people just don't seem to be getting it.
