|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why are there no human apes alive today? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Doubletime wrote:
If humans really did evolve from human apes then why are there no human apes alive today ( or well atleast no known) ? Excellent question, double time,the plain answer is because there is no such thing.
How come the chimpanzees and the orangutangs and the gorillas survived untill this day practically staying the same shape ( I havent got any information about the monkeys evolution in the past) While more advanced forms of semi humans died out ore evolved The semi- human's are just imagination of 19 century writer they don't actually exist. That is why we cannot see evolutionary tree today because they are incorrect( see stephen jay gould's mismeasure of man)
How would the primitive apes have survied along side with the most advanced form of humans. While all the semi humans died out ? Again excellent question, since evolutionary theory predicted that as organasism advanced they are more suited than there predescors. So where are those apemen? Proponents of evolution are just bluffing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
I have read Gould's Mismeasure of Man which is about eugenics, not a denial of the existence of hominid fossils Was Gould a believer of Darwinian evolution? If your answer is yes,you simply denied the fact that he and Eldridge advanced punctuated equlibrium.
also am certain that I am not alone in this forum in reading this book and others by Gould. Yes, you are not alone in believing that he supported Darwinian evolution, which in fact he did'nt.
Your use of this book in arguing against human and other species' evolution, which Gould accepted and wrote about in hundreds of works, is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst As I pointed he did'nt believe in Darwiniwan evolution, in I think 1978,he and Eldridge proposed punctuated equlibrium to explained the lack of "transitional links."
Is this an example of your version of Christian morality? If so, time to read the Bible again, try starting with the ten commandments as you just violated at least one in that post. Im not dishonest, but I guess you are and many others proponents of evolution. "Common sense means paying attention to what is obvious" Edited by traste, : wrong grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Granny Magda wrote:
No, silly question. There are about six billion human apes alive today. I am one, you are one... If you were to ask why there are no modern hominids or other extant members of the genus Homo, now that might be a better question Well, you are free to believe that you came from cows carabaos, dogs or even mosqutoes, just dont involve me in your belifs because it is unrealistic.You wrote "you are one" If evolution is correct? Is evolution correct? With an assertion of power many proponents of evolution will reply will it "is science,as we define science and we have to be content with it" . Well Im not content with it and amny otehr brilliant scientist are not content with it.
Funny, they seem to have left an awful lot of fossils for things that didn't exist. Are you just going to pretend that the human and hominid fossil records don't exist? That would be very silly and rather dishonest. For the record, I agree with Anglagard; your attempt to hijack Gould is dishonest in the extreme. Gould never claimed what you are trying to make him claim. Who do you think you are kidding Im not saying that human fossil doesnt exist,but I am saying ape men fossil doesnt exist,many so called fossils of ape men have been disproven by extensive investigation. This a responds for second paragraph. So what do you think was in the mind of Gould when he and Eldridge proposed punctuate equlibrium? Was he thingking that gradual evolution was realistic?
No it doesn't. You have forgotten one important factor; environment. What is well suited to one evolutionary niche might do very badly when forced to compete in another niche. Have a think about that, because it's central to answering Doubletime's question Actually that what is evolutionary theory say that as organism progress up to the ladder of complexities they are more suioted than there predessor. To claimed the opposite is dishonesty.Your claimed of environment as a factor,yes it is a factor but it doesnt prove that the advance form is disadvantage than thre predessors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Traste, you have shown that you know little about evolution, and have accepted the poison dished out by the anti-science and anti-evolution creationists. Unfortunately, they have to lie because the scientific evidence contradicts virtually all of their religious beliefs. You have fallen for their lies Given that I read books for and againts evoltion is no hint that I have a little knowledge on this subject. You wrote"accepted the poison dish"well, this the most worst thing of all if I really did that,but I never did that I simpy believe in creation for the simple reason it is a better explanation when it comes to the emergenge of biological complexities in life. Random mututaion is no help when it comes to the emergence of biological complexities,in fact resaerch show that genes ae powerful stabilizing mechanism that forbids mutation.In addition it is a process that easily break genes tahn building them up. Another problems of evolution is that at molecular level things are interdependent,and taht is contrast to gradual development of organism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
No primitive apes have survived only the modern apes, that is, modern gibbons, modern orangutans, modern gorillas, modern chimps & modern humans Well I think you justdont get it. My point is since apemen is more advance than modern apes,orangutans, and many other types of monkeys,then (Why is it there is no other ape men living today?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Please,add substance to this debate.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: 24 hour suspension because of this message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Huntard wrote:
Because those apes were adapted to their (ever changing) environment, yet those apemen weren't. It's really that simple What made them better adapted? If they are better adapted then it follows that they have advanced feutures. In this respect my argument remained intact and my question remained unanswered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
bluescat48 wrote:
Who said anything about monkeys? Monkeys aren't apes. Apemen are no more advanced that other apes, just different. For the same reason that their are only 2 species of Chimpanzee & one species of Gorilla adaptation. Those species that could adapt, survived, those that couldn't became extinct. Actually they are advanced because the theory of evolution itself claimed as complexities increased they became more advanced than there predessors, in this regards the question is sensible. Because if they are not advanced. Why they survived? The theory of evolution claimed that natural selection choose only those organism that are better adapted, it cannot be called better adapted if it is not advanced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
bluescat48 wrote:
The point is they didn't survive. The other apes & Homo sapiens survived but the so called apemen didn't Yes,they didnt survived,and that violates the theory of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Caffeine wrote:
Adaptation is purely relative to your environment. Take the sperm whale. It's very well adapted to life in the sea, so by your reckoning it's features must be advanced. However, if you put a sperm whale in the middle of the Kalahari, it wouldn't last five minutes What is the connection of this to the prices, of horses in Germany?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Granny Magda wrote:
No it doesn't. If you think this is the case, why don't you go and find a reputable source that uses this as the definition of evolution? Im, very much afaid I cannot for the simple reason that if I present those source you just simply said they are lying, Idont like to waste my effort.
Derived forms are not more advanced, just different. If you said more complex, that might be more accurate, over the long term, but even that is not necessarily true at all times Different in what sense? Yeah, I know that they are much more complex and more advanced in the same time, like the many machine we observe today, the complex one is more advanced than the other.
Because advanced or not, their genetic inheritance just happened to equip them well enough to survive Your faith in evolution is showing..Hasty generalization.
If this were true, then the earliest and most primitive lifeforms would inevitably died out as soon as they emerged. Not advanced enough Emerged from where? According to evolution the development was gradual,not sudden. The fact that we still see those primtive life forms are good evidence that Darwinian evolution is unverefiable,it cannot be tested today. Edited by traste, : add text Edited by traste, : wrong grammar Edited by traste, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Dr Adequate wrote:
This is, of course, not true That is 100%, that is the real reason why we cannot see intermidiate forms today.
This is why paleontologists, who, unlike you, spend their lives studying the fossil record, do not agree with your fantasies about the fossil record. Even honest paleontologist noticed the sudden apperance of organism. Just give me an example of a dog with out an eye and then gradually have it through blind naturalistic process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Huntard:
You are just a kind of guy, who are after showing sources just simply said, they are lying. That is a logical interpratation.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. It has that are there premises, how life originated through, material process.
They show both. Fully formed animals that showcase progressive changes They only show one, and that is sudden appearance.
Yes, this is why we have this evidence. It's called the fossil record. No, they did'nt that is the reason that there is seious disagreement among scientist.
Only in creationist circles. And the evidences sided them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Huntard wrote:
Wells is lying. No,he is telling the truth.
Pray tell, who are these "many" you refer to? If I were the one you task, I will not because you will simply said they are lying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Dr Adequate wrote:
Jonathan Wells is not a professional biologist Actually he is, he has Ph. D of cell and molecular biology and former member of the National Academy Of Science.
He works for the Discovery Institute A senior fellow. Wow, you know his status this will lead you to character assasination.
he's a professional creationist propagandist He is just writing what the nature is saying.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024