|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4215 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
in such a short period of time 6 million years is a short period of time? coyote Don't you realize that some of those species evolved into the next species? They didn't go extinct but changed. arachnophelia stated, human and chimpanzees are both crown species of the primate family tree. one did not evolve into the other; The point is that chimpanzees & humans had a common ancestor some 6 million years ago, through evolutionary processes, there were changes which eventually resulted in chimps & humans, those intermediate species either evolved into the chimps & humans or became a dead end. This is the same scenario that has gone on through all types of living things, some species survive, some don't. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 4828 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
So what is the common ancestor of humans and chimps?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
if we still have all types and examples of primates.... But we most certainly don't "still have" living examples of all the primates - only a fraction of all great apes that are known from fossils are still around. You've been shown pictures of skulls of a selection of the extinct ones about fifty times on this forum, dawn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Barbara, the last common ancestor is some critter sort of like Orrorin tugenensis. That's a question for a different thread, like one over at EvC Forum: Human Origins and Evolution
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4215 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
As of now there has not been found a fossil that can be regarded as the concestor of the humans & chimps. Possibly do to the fact that chimps evolved in the forests & humans in the savannahs. Also the line from concestor to chimp has yet to be found, whereas the human line has a number of finds.
According to Richard Dawkins's Ancestor's Tale So, when we and the chimpanzee/bonobo pilgrims meet at the rendezvous point, the likelihood is that the shared ancestor that we meet in the pliocene clearing was hairy like a chimpanzee, and had a chimpanzee-sized brain. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 108 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The point is that chimpanzees & humans had a common ancestor some 6 million years ago, through evolutionary processes, there were changes which eventually resulted in chimps & humans, those intermediate species either evolved into the chimps & humans or became a dead end. This is the same scenario that has gone on through all types of living things, some species survive, some don't. Not trying to be funny here, just trying to get this straight. So from going from nearly human looking, Neandertal, some of them went back to looking like chimps and some humans Shouldnt they have went forward to atleast look like, Dr Adequate, Arch or Cavediver, something nearly human. Lets be real here, there are some but ugly people out there, not these guys of course So where did the Gorillas, Apes and other type of primate come from and what should they have evolved into by now Why are they still just monkeys. I mean youve seen what these guys do in the zoo, while your staring at them through the glass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 108 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
But we most certainly don't "still have" living examples of all the primates - only a fraction of all great apes that are known from fossils are still around. You've been shown pictures of skulls of a selection of the extinct ones about fifty times on this forum, dawn. Then shouldnt the things that are not ancestors of chimps and man, Apes, gorrillas, whatever, have evolved into something nearly human? Are you saying the examples you are providing are examples of intermidiates from chimpanzees and man If so, what are the examples of the ancestory of Apes and Gorrillas, that are not quite monkey and not quite man. I hope that makes sense My earlier query was that it seemed strange that things that should have now been extinct, are not. Things that are closer to man, (these intermidiates as you call them) from your perspective some how went by the wayside Mine is not an argument one way or the other, simply an observation, that it seems that atleast a few examples of those supposed intermidiates would have survived, since we have so many examples of monkey looking primates, if indeed that is what we are actually looking at in your examples, some form of something not quite monkey and not quite man. I know thats not the right terminology, but you get the idea Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi DB,
Not trying to be funny here, Really? Are you sure you're not trying to be funny?
Shouldnt they have went forward to atleast look like, Dr Adequate, Arch or Cavediver, something nearly human. Hmm. Okay, I believe you. That certainly wasn't amusing. On to more substantive points.
So from going from nearly human looking, Neandertal, some of them went back to looking like chimps and some humans What? No! Neanderthals are not the ancestors of chimps. Neanderthals are a comparatively recent species, part of the Homo group. Chimps, Neanderthals and humans all share a common ancestor. The most recent common ancestor of Neanderthals and chimps would be the same as the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps.
So where did the Gorillas, Apes and other type of primate come from and what should they have evolved into by now Leaving aside the fact that gorillas, humans chimps and Neanderthals are all apes, they have evolved into what they are; apes. Humans are human, gorillas are gorilla. We need not speculate about what they should have become. We know what they have become. We can just look.
Why are they still just monkeys. They are not monkeys. Monkeys have tails amongst other things. But to answer what I take to be your underlying question, the chimps and gorillas are still forest dwelling simians (as opposed to having evolved into human-like forms) because that is the way their evolution happened to go. They never evolved in the direction that humanity did. Either the necessary mutations never arose or, if they did, they were not favoured by selection. Remember, evolution is not about "progress" or "improvement". It has no prearranged goal. It is only about meeting the needs of the environment. Chimps are more similar to their common ancestor simply because we changed more than they did. Mutate and Survive On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 108 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The point is that chimpanzees & humans had a common ancestor some 6 million years ago, through evolutionary processes, there were changes which eventually resulted in chimps & humans, those intermediate species either evolved into the chimps & humans or became a dead end. So where are Gorrillas, Apes and Orangatanges in this process (no funny shots here either)and why did thier kind survive and no examples of these other nutty looking guys Shouldnt those other things that you provided as examples have survived in some small way, if indeed they actually existed? Shouldnt they just keep going along side the whole Evo process even if changes were taking place? Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
I often hear that Humans are more intelligent than the Gorilla.
But one:
I have a feeling that just maybe, when they were handing out intelligence, the Gorillas and Humans flipped a coin. We lost. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4215 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
So from going from nearly human looking, Neandertal, some of them went back to looking like chimps and some humans Where did I say anything about neanderthals? The point is all the intermediates between the common ancestor and the 2 living lines, the chimps & humans, are no longer alive, they either became extinct or still remain as the end products. Edited by bluescat48, : typo There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Then shouldnt the things that are not ancestors of chimps and man, Apes, gorrillas, whatever, have evolved into something nearly human? Why? Seriously, why should they?
Are you saying the examples you are providing are examples of intermidiates from chimpanzees and man No. The other Homo species, Australopithecines, etc., they are intermediate between (a) the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps and (b) humans. Of course, not all the extinct hominids are the direct ancestors of humanity, only some.
If so, what are the examples of the ancestory of Apes and Gorrillas, that are not quite monkey and not quite man. I hope that makes sense I'm not sure it does. Can you rephrase that?
My earlier query was that it seemed strange that things that should have now been extinct, are not. What makes you think they should be extinct? Be specific.
Things that are closer to man, (these intermidiates as you call them) from your perspective some how went by the wayside Yes. What strikes you as odd about this? You seem to be assuming that human-like species somehow ought to survive. There is no special reason why this ought to be the case. Mutate and Survive On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 108 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
What? No! Neanderthals are not the ancestors of chimps. Neanderthals are a comparatively recent species, part of the Homo group. Chimps, Neanderthals and humans all share a common ancestor. The most recent common ancestor of Neanderthals and chimps would be the same as the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps. Yes and this is why this was my original inquiry. If they are a recent species it just seems odd that none survived. But if you can provide no explanation as to why they did not survive, then i will accept that as your answer For the creationist its not so much that we reject your "evidence", it simply makes no sense that they would not have survided in some fashion Since there were literally thousands and possible millions of these things according to your understanding, it seems we are required to depend for our decision on the scantaly piecies of information and remains that you put forward, when there should be overwhelming evidence in the fossil record where are the mass graves or such creatures? why do we have to depend on fragments and things pieced together, where literally thousands of examples should be present this should be no problem if indeed they are a recent species and only recently went extinct. I mean dinos were what, 60 to 100 million years ago and we have no problem finding the OVERWHELMING evidence we need to confirm thier actual existence Not so with these fellows and they are only six million years removed Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
If they are a recent species it just seems odd that none survived. But if you can provide no explanation as to why they did not survive, then i will accept that as your answer For the creationist its no so much that we reject your "evidence", it simply makes no sense that they would not have survided in some fashion Examples of extinctions when there are "millions of these things" are abundant. Check out the details on the extinction of the Passenger Pigeon. From Wiki: The Passenger Pigeon or Wild Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) was an extinct bird, which existed in North America. It lived in enormous migratory flockssometimes containing more than two billion birdsthat could stretch one mile (1.6 km) wide and 300 miles (500 km) long across the sky, sometimes taking several hours to pass. Since there were literally thousands and possible millions of these things according to your understanding, it seems we are required to depend for our decision on the scantaly piecies of information and remains, when there should be overwhelming evidence in the fossil record where are the mass graves or such creatures? why do we have to depend on fragments, where literally thousands of examples should be present this should be no problem if indeed they are a recent species and only recently went extinct. Where are the mass graves of Passenger Pigeons? They existed in the billions. Edited by Coyote, : No reason given. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10072 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
If they are a recent species it just seems odd that none survived.
Why does that seem odd? When looking at the fossil record and the history of life on Earth, extinction is the rule, not the exception.
where are the mass graves or such creatures? why do we have to depend on fragments and things pieced together, where literally thousands of examples should be present When something dies it usually dies on the surface where it is scavenged and disarticulated. Frankly, we are lucky to have the pieces we do have.
I mean dinos were what, 60 to 100 million years ago and we have no problem finding the OVERWHELMING evidence we need to confirm thier actual existence And we have no problem finding overwhelming evidence of transitional hominid species. Your point?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024