Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


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 151 of 1075 (534419)
11-08-2009 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by anglagard
10-28-2009 1:28 AM


Re: What is the Meaning of Complex?
anglagard wrote:
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?
Ohhhh, you are confusing yourself with my simple point. Complex means advanced, that is what we observed in technoloy today.
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 they know computer, math , engineering, predicting weather, predicting volcano eruption,? If your answer is no I hope you will agree if I say that you are advanced than than them in terns of those things.
Do you have an almost absolute knowledge of everything in your environment?
I dont have,and no people has.
Would you like to try your adaptation skills against such people?
If they are adapted to cold and I am adapted to hot, and the challenge is who will survive better in hot places I will take the challenge.
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?
Dont be very confident with your reasoning, because we are talking about descendant and predessors here, so far in your illustration you dont point out the descendants and predessors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by anglagard, posted 10-28-2009 1:28 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Coragyps, posted 11-08-2009 12:04 PM traste has not replied
 Message 155 by Granny Magda, posted 11-08-2009 12:30 PM traste has not replied
 Message 156 by caffeine, posted 11-09-2009 3:33 AM traste has not replied

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


Message 152 of 1075 (534420)
11-08-2009 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Huntard
10-28-2009 5:49 AM


Re: Wells
Huntard wrote:
Evidence? What evidence? He had (false) critiques of evolution. This is not evidence for creation.
In mathematics we called it,indirect proof.
Since his ideas were wrong, he was indeed easily dismissed by the actual evidence.
No, they argue with ad hominem attacks and long disproved evidence of evolution.
A genetic falacy? Surely you mean logical falacy? I know English is not your first language, but still.
I think I know logic than you, a genetic fallacy is irrelevant in debunking one's argument becase it evaluates one's status not his argument.

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 153 by Huntard, posted 11-08-2009 11:24 AM traste has not replied

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


(1)
Message 153 of 1075 (534437)
11-08-2009 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by traste
11-08-2009 2:36 AM


Re: Wells
traste writes:
In mathematics we called it,indirect proof.
What has this got to do with math? We're talking biology here.
No, they argue with ad hominem attacks and long disproved evidence of evolution.
No they don't. They're not creationists. He was rebutted easily and immediately with real verifiable evidence.
I think I know logic than you, a genetic fallacy is irrelevant in debunking one's argument becase it evaluates one's status not his argument.
Yes, you were right, I appologize. I didn't know the word "genetic falacy". Still, he was debunked by actual evidence.

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 152 by traste, posted 11-08-2009 2:36 AM traste has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 154 of 1075 (534441)
11-08-2009 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by traste
11-08-2009 2:24 AM


Re: What is the Meaning of Complex?
I hope you will agree if I say that you are advanced than than them in terms of those things.
See the italics? Could you feed yourself and avoid poisonous plants and snakes in the highland forests of New Guinea? I couldn't. Could you have kept yourself alive for a year in inland Namibia, or here in West Texas, in 1850? I couldn't have.
You and I aren't even remotely as "advanced" as a python is at squeezing piglets to death.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by traste, posted 11-08-2009 2:24 AM traste has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 155 of 1075 (534445)
11-08-2009 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by traste
11-08-2009 2:24 AM


Re: What is the Meaning of Complex?
Hi Traste,
You say;
Complex means advanced
In Message 134 I said;
Imagine that I have a wheelbarrow. Now imagine that I make it more complex, by adding some gears, levers, flashing lights, pulleys, pistons, and a little machine that goes *ping!*.
Is my wheelbarrow more advanced? It isn't going to be any better at moving soil around my garden. In fact, it is going to be worse, since it's bogged down with useless gadgetry.
It has been made more complex, but not more advanced in any meaningful sense.
Advancement is a human conceit. To advance, there must a clear line from worse to better. These are purely subjective judgements. You may think that a human is a big improvement on a jellyfish and I would be inclined to agree with you insofar as it goes. Nature however has no such opinions. Nature does not differentiate between good and bad, advanced or primitive. All that matters in nature is whether an organism can survive long enough to reproduce or not. That's it, the bottom line.
You have not responded to this. Since you are still repeating the same argument, I would appreciate a response.
Complex ≠ advanced. In fact, if you are going to insist upon using engineering as a (poor) metaphor for evolution, more complexity is very often undesirable. Simplicity is usually better. If you have two machines that do the same thing, and they both do it equally well, the simpler machine will always be the better.
The same is true in maths. Consider the following;
1+1=2
1+1+0+0+0+(2x0)+6-1-5+0=2
The second equation is more complex, but it adds nothing to the actual statement. Redundant complexity is always bad maths. Complex ≠ advanced.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by traste, posted 11-08-2009 2:24 AM traste has not replied

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


(2)
Message 156 of 1075 (534518)
11-09-2009 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by traste
11-08-2009 2:24 AM


Re: What is the Meaning of Complex?
If they are adapted to cold and I am adapted to hot, and the challenge is who will survive better in hot places I will take the challenge.
Exactly! But you wouldn't take the challenge if it was who will survive better in cold places. The 'advancement' isn't absolute; it's relative to the environment you're in.
Natural selection will often favour less complexity, because complexity is costly. Complex systems are maintained because they give you an advantage of some kind; they allow you to overcome a problem with survival or reproduction. If someone else comes along who can overcome the same problem with a simpler system, then they will do better. Their system will be cheaper to make, in terms of energy cost and time, and being simpler there'll probably be less things that can go wrong with it.
There's a famous experiment that I thought had already been mentioned in this thread, but which I now can't find. The experiment was done using the RNA of a virus, Q-beta, that normally infects bacterial cells. Normally, the RNA chain is about 4,500 bases long, and codes for four different proteins - each very useful for its survival and reproduction. One adheres it to the wall of the cell it's invaded; one gives it a protective protein coat; one is an enzyme that synthesises another enzyme out of the bacterial cell's own proteins - the latter enzyme being what the virus uses to replicate itself; and the fourth destroys the bacteria, allowing all the newly produced viruses to spread forth and multiply.
Scientists took this virus' RNA, and put it in testtubes containing the necessary chemicals to make more RNA, plus the enzyme the RNA needs to replicate. Obviously, the RNA chain started replicating, but in this artificial environment none of the complex, protein-coding sections of the chain were necessary. There were no bacterial cells to deal with, and the replicase enzyme was already present, so there was no need to synthesise it. Here, complexity was just wasteful, taking more time and more materials to copy while conferring no extra benefit. Simpler forms had the selective advantage here. With enough generations spent in this enviroment, the RNA can eventually shrink from 4,500 bases to as few as 50 - the bare minimum it still needs to replicate with this enzyme.
Natural selection doesn't favour complexity. It favours the simplest system which still acheives the desired effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by traste, posted 11-08-2009 2:24 AM traste has not replied

Nietzscheandrew
Junior Member (Idle past 5251 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 11-09-2009


Message 157 of 1075 (534605)
11-09-2009 7:18 PM


I have to begin by saying that I am no biologist or anthropologist or even an exceptionally well learned amateur. These are just opinions that could serve as plausible explainations, and are just food for thought. But, don't discount me because of that. I have as much authority on the subject as the average preacher who claims to have all the answers to life and our origins, and i claim no such thing.
to OP: evolution happens out of necessity. The apes did not evolve into "semi-humans" because they didn't need to. Or maybe some apes are "semi-humans" in a way. Studies show that apes can be relatively smart, but they probably didn't come into their own due to the fact that they don't need it. Why did early humans feel the necessity for more? They could be the great-great-great-great (etc.) grandchildren of the smartest proto-humans who may have had an instinctual drive to hook up with the smartest of the bunch. Thus, through time we got smarter and smarter and blah, blah, blah. The apes never developed this kind of drive because they are essentially retard-spawn of our ancestors (too dumb to become human, but too smart to just die off). But I have no real clue. This is more of a partial thought than an actual theory.

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by RAZD, posted 11-09-2009 8:21 PM Nietzscheandrew has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 158 of 1075 (534616)
11-09-2009 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Nietzscheandrew
11-09-2009 7:18 PM


if you don't know ...
Hi Nietzscheandrew, and welcome to the fray.
(1) I am no biologist or anthropologist or even an exceptionally well learned amateur.
(2) to OP: evolution happens out of necessity. The apes did not evolve into "semi-humans" because they didn't need to.
Statement (2) just proved statement (1).
I suggest reading through this site for a basic understanding of evolution as taught in universities to biology majors:
Evolution 101 - Understanding Evolution
This site provides an excellent overview. Then if you have any questions, feel free to ask (but start a new thread for them).
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Nietzscheandrew, posted 11-09-2009 7:18 PM Nietzscheandrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Nietzscheandrew, posted 11-10-2009 4:39 PM RAZD has replied

Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 159 of 1075 (534629)
11-09-2009 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doubletime
06-18-2009 6:06 AM


why are there no human apes alive today
Because we killed them. They occupied land that we wanted, and they were different from us, and we turned out be smarter and better-organized. So we killed them and took their land.
But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee [for] an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
--Deuteronomy 20:16
If they had been able to produce offspring with us some of their descendants might be in existence today. But if so, then they would be us, as opposed to them, wouldn't they?
The reason there are a very small number of somewhat-less-human apes like chimps and gorillas still alive now is because they adapted to live in niche territories that we didn't (until relatively recently) much want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doubletime, posted 06-18-2009 6:06 AM Doubletime has not replied

Nietzscheandrew
Junior Member (Idle past 5251 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 11-09-2009


Message 160 of 1075 (534753)
11-10-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by RAZD
11-09-2009 8:21 PM


Re: if you don't know ...
1. I have a feeling that this sites evolution overview is half-assed.
2. evolution does either happen out of necessity or because certain traits, while not necessarily required for survival, do make survival easier.
example: do you think birds developed wings (let's assume THEY developed them and that God didn't give them to them) because it makes it easier to flee predators and migrate (don't ask me how it happened, i'm no biologist) or because they thought wings would be pretty cool looking?
oh, and i have another answer to the "why no human apes" question: See Africa for that which you seek =)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by RAZD, posted 11-09-2009 8:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2009 7:09 PM Nietzscheandrew has not replied
 Message 162 by jacortina, posted 11-10-2009 8:03 PM Nietzscheandrew has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 161 of 1075 (534758)
11-10-2009 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Nietzscheandrew
11-10-2009 4:39 PM


Re: if you don't know ... DON"T PRETEND YOU KNOW
Hi Nietzscheandrew, having a little cognitive dissonance problem?
1. I have a feeling that this sites evolution overview is half-assed.
You are talking about the University of Berkeley Biology Department website. In Message 157 you said:
I have to begin by saying that I am no biologist or anthropologist or even an exceptionally well learned amateur.
And now suddenly you know enough to criticize a website put up and maintained by people with PhDs in Evolution and Biology?
2. evolution does either happen out of necessity ...
Never.
Evolution is a response mechanism that can take advantage of opportunities when they arise, but evolution never occurs in response to need.
Natural selection operates on the existing variations in a population - it does not produce any variations to say nothing of any "needed" variations.
If the population does not have the variations needed to survive a change in their ecology then they perish.
Mutation operates to add random variety to the population - some variations are larger than other, but there is no mechanism to make or cause a mutation to occur in answer to a need. The mutations occur during the reproductive and early development of an organism, and by the time they are fully developed they are either adapted to their ecology or they are not. If the ecology changes then it is too late for them to change, so if they are not able to survive the change they perish.
... or because certain traits, while not necessarily required for survival, do make survival easier.
Survival is only half the equation of natural selection, reproducing is the other part. You have a conceptual error in how and where evolution works. Each individual lives, eats, mates and dies based on the traits they received during the reproductive process that produce them from their parents. They do not change, they do not adapt, they survive or perish, reproduce or are barren based on their phenotype that was fixed when they finished growing.
example: do you think birds developed wings (let's assume THEY developed them and that God didn't give them to them) because it makes it easier to flee predators and migrate ...
Again you make a conceptual error here, there is no conscious development of wings by birds because it would be "easier to flee predators and migrate" - it's the other way around: existing variations that offered improved survival and breeding benefit were passed down from one generation to the next, gradually accumulating the traits necessary for flight. You do know, don't you, that they have now found feathered dinosaurs long before flight occurred - flight occurred because the opportunity was provided by the pre-existing feathers.
... (don't ask me how it happened, i'm no biologist) or because they thought wings would be pretty cool looking?
As I said, you have already proven that you are no biologist, because you know squat about evolution or how it works. The question is why you keep spouting off your ill-informed opinion rather than rectifying a rather obvious deficiency in your education, especially when you have been pointed to an excellent resource for doing that.
Newcomers are usually cut some slack, especially young newcomers, however I suggest you consider learning more, and asserting poorly informed opinion less.
oh, and i have another answer to the "why no human apes" question: See Africa for that which you seek =)
At least this relates to the topic. Perhaps you'd like to read the thread to see what is already covered.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Nietzscheandrew, posted 11-10-2009 4:39 PM Nietzscheandrew has not replied

jacortina
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


(1)
Message 162 of 1075 (534762)
11-10-2009 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Nietzscheandrew
11-10-2009 4:39 PM


Re: if you don't know ...
... or because they thought wings would be pretty cool looking?
Many changes DO get fixed in a population because they are 'cool looking' ... to prospective mates. Sexual selection means that 'cool looking' gives greater reproductive success, because without mating reproduction is zero. And it's reproductive success, not 'survival' per se, which is the key.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Nietzscheandrew, posted 11-10-2009 4:39 PM Nietzscheandrew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2009 8:17 PM jacortina has replied
 Message 165 by ZenMonkey, posted 11-10-2009 11:10 PM jacortina has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 163 of 1075 (534765)
11-10-2009 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by jacortina
11-10-2009 8:03 PM


Re: if you don't know ...
Hi jacortina,
Many changes DO get fixed in a population because they are 'cool looking' ...
After they have had the opportunity to evolve. Nietzscheandrew was trying to claim that they would evolve solely to suit this later purpose.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by jacortina, posted 11-10-2009 8:03 PM jacortina has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by jacortina, posted 11-10-2009 8:22 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

jacortina
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


(1)
Message 164 of 1075 (534767)
11-10-2009 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by RAZD
11-10-2009 8:17 PM


Re: if you don't know ...
Right.
I thought you addressed THAT part of it adequately, that the variation comes without regard to need (or looks).
Just pointing out that 'cool looking' has more of a place in evolution than the seemingly dismissive tone suggests, not that 'trying' to get a cool look is the way it happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2009 8:17 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4510 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 165 of 1075 (534777)
11-10-2009 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by jacortina
11-10-2009 8:03 PM


Re: if you don't know ...
Many changes DO get fixed in a population because they are 'cool looking' ... to prospective mates. Sexual selection means that 'cool looking' gives greater reproductive success, because without mating reproduction is zero. And it's reproductive success, not 'survival' per se, which is the key.
Of course, "cool looking" in an evolutionary sense often means "I'm a healthy individual and can give you many strong babies." Traits that are selected for in choosing a mate - bright colors, big horns, huge plumage, loud croaking - can all attest to a suitor's, well, suitability.
Also, thanks for mentioning a point that traste seems to be trying very hard not to understand: success = reproductive success. Nothing else matters to natural selection except passing on the genes. The notion that organisms somehow strive to become more "advanced," like Windows upgrades or cell phones, is fundamentally wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by jacortina, posted 11-10-2009 8:03 PM jacortina 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