63 LR One Question 19
- « 63 LR One Question 18
- 2085 of 3815
- 63 LR One Question 20 »
Comments
I am so sorry but I did not understand the argument at all. My understanding was completely different and I fail to make sense of your explanation. The argument (in my understanding) says that it was thought that prehistoric Homo Sapiens interbred with Neanderthals. But this is not the case because DNA of contemporary human is completely different from Neanderthal. So the assumption, as I saw it, was that "if there was interbreeding, we would see similarity in DNA from the interbreeding mechanism." I fail to see any analogy. Please help.
The argument bases a conclusion about prehistoric Homo sapiens on evidence about contemporary humans. To do so assumes that the two are analogous.
What about Neanderthals? The conclusion, I think, is about lack of interbreeding with evidence saying that DNA of modern humans lack similarity with Neanderthals.
Consider this argument: People used to think that grape jelly tasted good with peanut butter. Later, we found that this cannot be true: orange marmalade contains tannins that make it gross with peanut butter.
It is structurally identical to our argument, and as you can see, the peanut butter isn't the problem; it's the conflation of orange marmalade with grape jelly.