Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 136 of 1075 (532999)
10-28-2009 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2009 2:24 AM


Dr Adequate wrote:
Intermediate forms are abundant in the fossil record
If you really look on you will find out that you were wrong.
Honest paleontologists think that creationism is crap.
It is not. Even scientist who dont have any religious connotation(i.e. Fred Hoyle) implied that it is the most plausible explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 2:24 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 137 of 1075 (533000)
10-28-2009 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by DrJones*
09-26-2009 2:09 AM


Dr Jones wrote:
I stated 2 of them, enviroment and other species.
If the enviroment was harsh. What do you think will survive better the simple or the complex? The answer is obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by DrJones*, posted 09-26-2009 2:09 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by DrJones*, posted 10-28-2009 1:08 AM traste has replied
 Message 142 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2009 1:49 AM traste has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 138 of 1075 (533001)
10-28-2009 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by traste
10-28-2009 1:06 AM


If the enviroment was harsh. What do you think will survive better the simple or the complex?
the species that is better adapted to the enviroment.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by traste, posted 10-28-2009 1:06 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by traste, posted 11-08-2009 2:08 AM DrJones* has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 139 of 1075 (533002)
10-28-2009 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by traste
10-28-2009 12:51 AM


Complexity?
What made the better adapted? the obvious answer is because they are more complex. So, it follows that the more complex the more itis better adapted. So bacause apemen is more complex, the question is: Why there are no apemen alive today?
Complexity or over-specialization can be a detriment in some cases.
Some species died out because their complexity or specialization was the wrong one when the environment changed in a direction that did not favor that specialization.
An example of such specialization is the koala, which eats only the leaves of one tree. If some disease eliminated or severely restricted that tree they'd be up the extinction creek with no means of propulsion.
As for "apemen" (by which I assume you mean extinct hominids as "apemen" is not exactly a well defined term), perhaps they died out in part because of competition from the species which eventually led to modern humans. Humans are generalists, and perhaps some of those "apemen" were more complex in the wrong direction when the conditions changed (competition from other species is a part of that change).

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by traste, posted 10-28-2009 12:51 AM traste has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(1)
Message 140 of 1075 (533003)
10-28-2009 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by traste
10-28-2009 12:51 AM


What is the Meaning of Complex?
traste writes:
The question remains. What made the better adapted? the obvious answer is because they are more complex. So, it follows that the more complex the more itis better adapted. So bacause apemen is more complex, the question is: Why there are no apemen alive today?
What is the meaning of complex? Are modern city dwellers more complex, dealing with politics, financial derivatives, supposed education in reality, and so on more complex than those who live in nature, as 'wildlife' does?
Jared Diamond in the introduction to Guns, Germs, and Steel refers to the New Guinea tribesmen as the most intelligent people he has ever met due to the fact they have an almost absolute knowledge of every plant, animal and geographic feature in their environment.
Do you have an almost absolute knowledge of everything in your environment?
Would you like to try your adaptation skills against such people?
Would you like to try your adaptation skills against the wild without the convenience of modern science? As in naked, without Wal-Mart clothes? without 7-11 beef jerky? without municipal water? without that SUV to transport you away from those all so 'fierce' black bears and mountain lions?
So what is the meaning of complex?
Or, in this case, is the term complex simply a mistaken and inappropriate term for adaptability.
Edited by anglagard, : add 'in this case' to last sentence for clarity

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by traste, posted 10-28-2009 12:51 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by traste, posted 11-08-2009 2:24 AM anglagard has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 141 of 1075 (533004)
10-28-2009 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Dr Adequate
09-26-2009 2:38 AM


Re: Wells
Dr Adequate wrote:
It is very relevant when the pertinence of your argument hinges on his status.
Im not the one who started it first, but you. Actually evaulting one's status to refute one's argument is a genetic fallacy one of the fallacies in logic. Would you say that Copernicus is wrong bacause some people considered hi as ignorant?
Obviously Wells' words would have been of no particular interest if he was, for example, a professional pastry chef. Your whole point was: "Look, look, here's someone with status who's saying what I want to hear". The entire relevance of the quotation rested on his status
Actualy you and your co- supporters are the one who are doing this, given that you dont like to listen and and see what the idea of creation is all about. When a proponent of creation and a scientist present evidence in favor of it,was he entertain fairly,? or he was easily dissmiss as a crank? When Neils Henrik Abel showed proof that an equation of degree 5 or more is not solvable by radicals, was he entertain fairly by the leading mathematician of that day( Carl Friedrich Gauss)or he was dissmissed as a crank?
Therefore, it is worthwhile examining his status. The fact that he has a PhD in biology does, in fact, make his words more relevant than those of a pastry chef. But the fact that he only got his PhD because his cult leader ordered him to get it so that he could more effectively propagandize against evolution somewhat undercuts that: for his views on evolution do not result from any biological research, but from joining a cult in which the cult leader and self-proclaimed Messiah told him what his views ought to be.
As I said evaluating one's status is a genetic fallacy. Actually Wells in his book Icons Of Evolution ( I forgot the whole title) present publicized evidence that in conflict with Darwin's prediction. To give you a clue let me present some the idea of primative atmosphere (the reducing one) fish turning into amphibians.
If your reply to this message is again evaluating Well's status I will not bother myself to reply, I have a lot of important things to do.
Edited by traste, : iproving text
Edited by traste, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2009 2:38 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Huntard, posted 10-28-2009 5:49 AM traste has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
Message 142 of 1075 (533005)
10-28-2009 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by traste
10-28-2009 1:06 AM


Survival in a harsh Environment
If the enviroment was harsh. What do you think will survive better the simple or the complex? The answer is obvious.
Of course, it depends on what you mean by "harsh", "complex" and "simple". But taking what I think most would mean the answer is indeed obvious.
It is obvious that the most successful (almost) life forms of the whole planet would succeed. They live today in all the most horribly "harsh" environments on earth. The are the extremophiles of course. It is totally obvious they will survive better than anything.
They are also, by most definitions, very simple. And, as it has always been, the simpler unicellular life will survive.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by traste, posted 10-28-2009 1:06 AM traste has not replied

caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 143 of 1075 (533011)
10-28-2009 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by traste
09-25-2009 11:36 PM


Re: The difference between 'adapted' and 'advanced'
Sorry that I never replied to this earlier - I only just noticed it. You wrote:
quote:
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?
You might have answered your question had you carried on reading instad of stopping at the third sentence. I was using an extreme example to show that 'advanced' is a meaningless term in the abstract. What matters for evolution is how well adapted an animal is to it's environment. The general point was applied to hominids at the end of my post:
quote:
Similar things probably happened to many other hominid species. Environments changed - Africa dried for example, meaning more dry open spaces and less swampy marshlands. If a hominid species was specially adapted to living in these swampy wetlands, they'd find it harder to survive when these are reduced. Again, though, this doesn't mean they're less advanced than the hominids which were adapted to life in the new, drier Africa. Had the climate changed differently and gotten wetter, the same hominids forced to extinction might have flourished.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by traste, posted 09-25-2009 11:36 PM traste has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 144 of 1075 (533014)
10-28-2009 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by traste
10-28-2009 1:36 AM


Re: Wells
traste writes:
When a proponent of creation and a scientist present evidence in favor of it,was he entertain fairly,?
Evidence? What evidence? He had (false) critiques of evolution. This is not evidence for creation.
or he was easily dissmiss as a crank?
Since his ideas were wrong, he was indeed easily dismissed by the actual evidence.
As I said evaluating one's status is a genetic fallacy.
A genetic falacy? Surely you mean logical falacy? I know English is not your first language, but still.
Actually Wells in his book Icons Of Evolution ( I forgot the whole title) present publicized evidence that in conflict with Darwin's prediction.
No he doesn't. He presents false ideas and logical falacies and hopes readers don't know enough about evolution to buy into his lies.
To give you a clue let me present some the idea of primative atmosphere (the reducing one) fish turning into amphibians.
What? Please be a bit more specific.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by traste, posted 10-28-2009 1:36 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by caffeine, posted 10-28-2009 7:41 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 152 by traste, posted 11-08-2009 2:36 AM Huntard has replied

caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 145 of 1075 (533019)
10-28-2009 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Huntard
10-28-2009 5:49 AM


Genetic fallacy
A genetic falacy? Surely you mean logical falacy? I know English is not your first language, but still.
The genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy, referring to the fact that the genesis of an argument (ie. who made it) is irrelevant to it's soundness. And fallacy has a double l. I thought English was your first language .
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Huntard, posted 10-28-2009 5:49 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Huntard, posted 10-28-2009 2:00 PM caffeine has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 146 of 1075 (533069)
10-28-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by caffeine
10-28-2009 7:41 AM


Re: Genetic fallacy
caffeine writes:
The genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy, referring to the fact that the genesis of an argument (ie. who made it) is irrelevant to it's soundness. And fallacy has a double l.
Ah... My apologies then.
I thought English was your first language .
Uhm no. As you can see below my avatar, I'm from The Netherlands, I would like to think of English as my "second language" though. I don't know every little word form every little discipline, however.
But thanks for pointing out my error.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by caffeine, posted 10-28-2009 7:41 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by caffeine, posted 10-29-2009 5:06 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 147 of 1075 (533146)
10-29-2009 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by traste
10-28-2009 12:51 AM


traste writes:
The question remains. What made the better adapted?
Evolution. Or, they possessed traits others didn't, which were beneficial.
the obvious answer is because they are more complex.
No, if others were overly complex, they could die out because the environment changed and they were too specialised to adapt.
So, it follows that the more complex the more itis better adapted.
No it doesn't.
So bacause apemen is more complex, the question is: Why there are no apemen alive today?
Because they weren't adapted well enough to their (ever changing) environment...

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by traste, posted 10-28-2009 12:51 AM traste has not replied

caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 148 of 1075 (533160)
10-29-2009 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Huntard
10-28-2009 2:00 PM


Re: Genetic fallacy
Uhm no. As you can see below my avatar, I'm from The Netherlands, I would like to think of English as my "second language" though. I don't know every little word form every little discipline, however.
Aha, I should pay more attention. Sorry if I sounded a bit snarky. I'm not normally a spelling corrector - i just thought it had to be pointed out since you were being so critical of traste's English.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Huntard, posted 10-28-2009 2:00 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Huntard, posted 10-29-2009 5:16 AM caffeine has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 149 of 1075 (533163)
10-29-2009 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by caffeine
10-29-2009 5:06 AM


Re: Genetic fallacy
caffeine writes:
Aha, I should pay more attention. Sorry if I sounded a bit snarky. I'm not normally a spelling corrector - i just thought it had to be pointed out since you were being so critical of traste's English.
Oh, not at all. I appreciate being pointed out where I am wrong, how else am I to find new knowledge. And you are right, someone going off about somebody else being wrong, while being wrong themselves should be corrected.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by caffeine, posted 10-29-2009 5:06 AM caffeine has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 150 of 1075 (534418)
11-08-2009 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by DrJones*
10-28-2009 1:08 AM


Dr Jones:
You have fearful words, when I click on them they just disappear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by DrJones*, posted 10-28-2009 1:08 AM DrJones* has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024