Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 1075 (620911)
06-21-2011 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Mazzy
06-21-2011 2:06 PM


Evolution relies heavily on the disappearance of intermediate anything really.
No, not really... How so? By what mechanism?
What about things like these:
If other apes were sufficiently equipt to survive, as did the human line, then there is no reason that a representation of the rise to mankind shouldn't be around.
There's plenty of other apes around that give us a glimpse into the rise of mankind and the fossil record clearly shows an evolutionary path.
The representations have changed from ape like to fully human looking in appearance. This revamp was not due to additional fossil finding. It was in response to the Neanderthal genome project. Therefore one cannot rely on representations as they reflect a bias towards what scientists think any organism would or should have looked like for evolution to be factual.
The representations aren't relied on for anything.
It would have been better for evolutionists if all the evidence for evolution did not keep on disappearing and some ape man was still about.
Like orangutans? It litterally translates into "forest man"... I mean, look at this guy:
How is that NOT an "ape-man"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Mazzy, posted 06-21-2011 2:06 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by Mazzy, posted 06-30-2011 4:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


(1)
Message 197 of 1075 (620917)
06-21-2011 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Mazzy
06-21-2011 2:06 PM


Intermediates, Humans, and Evolution
Evolution relies heavily on the disappearance of intermediate anything really.
No, it does not. Evolution does rely on the interconnectedness of life, though, and implicit in that is the fact that life is full of intermediates. Otherwise, you wouldn't be related to your parents, and you to your children or future children.
If other apes were sufficiently equipt to survive, as did the human line, then there is no reason that a representation of the rise to mankind shouldn't be around.
Nothing in the ToE says anything about "all or some species need to survive." In fact, extinctions are the rule and not the exception. Climates change, disasters happen, and species outcompete one another. It happens that we are the last of the hominid line; we outcompeted/absorbed into our line all our Homo competetor's. Those we didn't outcompete/absorb, died out.
Not so hidden in your statement is the answer to your own statement. Ie. "If other apes were sufficiently equipt to survive..." Then they would have survived. (I am assuming you are referring to the Hominids directly ancestral to human's)
By the way, Apes still exist.
Neanderthal used to be used as a represntation of mid species. They were represented as such and were good evidence for the transition from ape to man. However, as we all know, this is no longer the case with Neanderthal being classified by some scientists as homo sapiens neanderthalis, a human subspecies.
That Neanderthals were used as a representation of mid-species, I would have to dispute. They might have been used by some as evidence of the progression toward man in a "chain-of-being", but in no way were they classified as "mid" anything. Of course the idea that they were intermediatary from an earlier Homo to Us, might have been an idea from a long time ago but fortunately for us, SCIENCE ADVANCES.
The representations have changed from ape like to fully human looking in appearance. This revamp was not due to additional fossil finding. It was in response to the Neanderthal genome project. Therefore one cannot rely on representations as they reflect a bias towards what scientists think any organism would or should have looked like for evolution to be factual.
BS. Neandethal's were classified in the Homo lineage long before the "Neanderthal genome project." They have had plenty of Neanderthal bones to piece together what Neanderthal's looked like. Don't discount comparative anatomy's ability to determine relatedness. As far as the 'NGP' is concerned, it just strengthened our understanding of where Neanderthal's fit in the evolution of Homo Sapien Sapien.
It would have been better for evolutionists if all the evidence for evolution did not keep on disappearing and some ape man was still about.
What evidence is disappearing? It would be much easier for scientists if they could go back in time and collect DNA samples from all the species that have ever existed, but unfortunately (or fortunately) we live in the real world and we do what we can to understand it. It hasn't stopped us from coming to an understanding of how evoution works. There will always be kinks in the road, questions to answer, but how dull would it be if we knew everything.
Another interesting twist to the topic is that no other organism has evolved high reasoning and perceptual capability. With all the homology around it is a shame we can't have a conversation with something like an evolved mouse or turtle.
What is your definition of "high reasoning?" What do 'you' mean by "perceptual capability?" Mice and turtles have survived a long time without bigger brains, so why would they need them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Mazzy, posted 06-21-2011 2:06 PM Mazzy has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 198 of 1075 (620921)
06-21-2011 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Mazzy
06-21-2011 2:06 PM


More evolved?
Reading your posts I get the feeling that you think you are more evolved than today's pond scum or a Chimpanzee.
Guess what?
You aren't!
That much is a fact.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Mazzy, posted 06-21-2011 2:06 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Portillo, posted 06-22-2011 3:37 AM jar has replied
 Message 251 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 1:28 PM jar has replied

Ahsankmc
Member (Idle past 4663 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 06-22-2011


Message 199 of 1075 (620965)
06-22-2011 2:51 AM


Human Anatomy itself explains a lot of facts about evolution but still one cannot say for sure that human beings have descended from apes. Enough proof and data is still to be presented to make people believe in this.
Edited by AdminModulous, : possible signature spammer.

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by anglagard, posted 06-22-2011 3:17 AM Ahsankmc has not replied

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


Message 200 of 1075 (620966)
06-22-2011 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Ahsankmc
06-22-2011 2:51 AM


Humans are Essentially Apes
Ahsankmc writes:
Human Anatomy itself explains a lot of facts about evolution but still one cannot say for sure that human beings have descended from apes. Enough proof and data is still to be presented to make people believe in this.
Do you speak for all people?
Well, maybe some less informed people, be it by choice or 'ahem' design.
The nearly unanimous decision among the informed is that anatomy is clear evidence of a relationship, along with DNA.
Do you have a tail? (it happens but it is rare). If not, I would be less confident of declaring all great apes inherently unrelated.
You may want to look up human chromosome 2, not just evidence but damning evidence.
What have you got in way of evidence for your doubts?
Welcome to EvC!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Ahsankmc, posted 06-22-2011 2:51 AM Ahsankmc has not replied

Portillo
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 201 of 1075 (620967)
06-22-2011 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by jar
06-21-2011 5:03 PM


Re: More evolved?
quote:
Reading your posts I get the feeling that you think you are more evolved than today's pond scum or a Chimpanzee.
Are you saying that we are not more evolved than pond scum?
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 06-21-2011 5:03 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by anglagard, posted 06-22-2011 4:00 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 204 by Larni, posted 06-22-2011 4:50 AM Portillo has replied
 Message 207 by Dr Jack, posted 06-22-2011 5:39 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 208 by jar, posted 06-22-2011 6:50 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 209 by AZPaul3, posted 06-22-2011 8:47 AM Portillo has replied

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


Message 202 of 1075 (620970)
06-22-2011 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Portillo
06-22-2011 3:37 AM


More Evolved than What?
Portillo writes:
Are you saying that we are not more evolved than pond scum?
Are you better adapted to your environment than pond scum is to its environment?
IMO you have a lot to learn about what evolution actually means. If biology is not your forte, consider reading the first chapter of Guns, Germs, and Steel. Then learn a lot about what the Theory of Evolution actually states.
Should you choose to remain, like all else here, you are in great danger of learning something about a lot of subjects.
Edited by anglagard, : last sentence

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 201 by Portillo, posted 06-22-2011 3:37 AM Portillo has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 203 of 1075 (620971)
06-22-2011 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Mazzy
06-21-2011 2:06 PM


Actually you are incorrect. Some scientists did refer to Aborigines as not being fully human but akin to homo erectus.
Page Not Found
The link you provide does not support your claim nor show me to be incorrect about anything.
Evolution relies heavily on the disappearance of intermediate anything really.
Well, that was nonsense.
Since you don't know anything about evolution, perhaps you should stop trying to lecture other people on it and start asking questions instead.
If other apes were sufficiently equipt to survive, as did the human line, then there is no reason that a representation of the rise to mankind shouldn't be around.
Does the word "niche" mean anything to you?
Neanderthal used to be used as a represntation of mid species. They were represented as such and were good evidence for the transition from ape to man.
Who claimed that?
The representations have changed from ape like to fully human looking in appearance. This revamp was not due to additional fossil finding. It was in response to the Neanderthal genome project.
No.
Therefore one cannot rely on representations as they reflect a bias towards what scientists think any organism would or should have looked like for evolution to be factual.
Golly, you said something true. Yes, artists' impressions are not evidentiary, which is why no-one says that they are.
It would have been better for evolutionists if all the evidence for evolution did not keep on disappearing and some ape man was still about.
No, then dumbass creationists would be asking "why are there still ape-men" just like now they ask "why are there still monkeys". There is no set of circumstances under which creationists will cease to be stupid.
Another interesting twist to the topic is that no other organism has evolved high reasoning and perceptual capability. With all the homology around it is a shame we can't have a conversation with something like an evolved mouse or turtle.
Your point, assuming you have one, is obscure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Mazzy, posted 06-21-2011 2:06 PM Mazzy has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 204 of 1075 (620972)
06-22-2011 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Portillo
06-22-2011 3:37 AM


Re: More evolved?
Are you saying that we are not more evolved than pond scum?
What you appear to be missing is that populations of organisms evolve to fit their enviroment.
Therefor, pondscum is far more evolved than we are for surviving in ponds.
Often, people think that evolution is directed with humans as the end point of evolution.
We are very well adapted by evolution for tool use, distance running and selective abstraction but terribly adapted by evolution for flying, or metabolising arsnic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Portillo, posted 06-22-2011 3:37 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Portillo, posted 06-22-2011 6:49 PM Larni has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 205 of 1075 (620976)
06-22-2011 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Wounded King
06-21-2011 12:04 PM


Re: Usual Misquote
Or alternatively would you care to explain how his statement makes any sense except with Caucasians or his hypothetical 'more civilised state' being further removed from the great apes than were negros or aboriginals?
There is a greater gulf between the lifestyle of a New Yorker and a chimpanzee than between a hunter-gatherer living in a jungle and a chimpanzee; and so if everyone lived like New Yorkers the apparent gap between our species and chimps would appear greater. But if we agree on this, and I presume you do, we have said nothing about genetic differences between the New Yorker and the hunter-gatherer. So I don't see that we should jump to the conclusion than that Darwin was trying to.
Appealing to genetics hardly helps since Darwin didn't actually know any genetics.
I did not "appeal to genetics". I used the word "genetic" --- where Darwin would have used the word "heritable". He knew the difference between genetic and cultural transmission of behavior even if he wouldn't have put it in those terms (which he wouldn't).
You seem to wish to represent Darwin as the sort of infallible genius creationists and IDists often mistakenly claim all evolutionists regard him as.
I don't regard him as infallible; but a genius, yes. And even if he was not, I take it as a general rule that if someone says something which admits of more than one interpretation, the correct interpretation is likely to be the one which makes more sense.
So if you can use your psychic connection to once again tell us what Darwin really meant, instead of what he actually wrote, I'm sure that would help us out a lot.
I think I'll stick with what he actually wrote:
At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Wounded King, posted 06-21-2011 12:04 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Wounded King, posted 06-22-2011 5:34 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 206 of 1075 (620978)
06-22-2011 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Dr Adequate
06-22-2011 5:03 AM


Re: Usual Misquote
Sorry Dr A, I don't see how that addresses the point at all, you are excluding morality and civilisation from heritability, while Darwin seems to be explicitly including them.
I agree that taken on its own the quote about "The break between man and his nearest allies" could be interpreted as simply being about lifestyles and cultural behavioural differences, but now this really is quote mining, since the context makes it clear that he considers these lifestyle and cultural behavioural differences to be part and parcel of the heritable traits that are being selected.
You can argue that he was getting at some sort of cultural memetic heritability but I don't see any evidence for it in what he wrote.
And can you tell me what the similar significant non-heritable behavioural and social differences are between the baboons and great apes that Darwin was thinking of?
At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.
I entirely fail to see what relevance you think this has to the discussion. Are you saying that it means Darwin thought that 'All Men Are Created Equal'?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2011 5:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-23-2011 7:52 AM Wounded King has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 207 of 1075 (620979)
06-22-2011 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Portillo
06-22-2011 3:37 AM


Re: More evolved?
Are you saying that we are not more evolved than pond scum?
I can think of no reasonable grounds to claim that we are more evolved than pond scum on. By most reasonable measures we are either equally or less evolved than pond scum. Pond scum's shorter generation time and larger population sizes mean they undergo more rapid evolution than we do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Portillo, posted 06-22-2011 3:37 AM Portillo has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 208 of 1075 (620981)
06-22-2011 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Portillo
06-22-2011 3:37 AM


Re: More evolved?
As others have pointed out, "Yes we are not more evolved than pond scum."

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Portillo, posted 06-22-2011 3:37 AM Portillo has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 209 of 1075 (620991)
06-22-2011 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Portillo
06-22-2011 3:37 AM


Re: More evolved?
Are you saying that we are not more evolved than pond scum?
Yes, I am a godless atheist and an evolutionist but let me take a different slant on this question.
The mere fact that you ask this shows an abhorrent lack of knowledge in the field.
You do not know what evolution really means or how evolution is really said to work. How can you intellectually fight against something of which you have no knowledge?
You are in here to do battle and you are hopelessly unarmed!
Know thine enemy!
Go learn something about the subject before continuing to look so stupid.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Portillo, posted 06-22-2011 3:37 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Portillo, posted 06-22-2011 6:43 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 210 of 1075 (620992)
06-22-2011 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Mazzy
06-21-2011 2:06 PM


Hi Mazzy,
You seem to pop into discussions for brief periods and then disappear, so since I doubt I'll get any response I'll just respond to the first thing I saw that was wrong. Others have pointed out your other errors.
Mazzy writes:
Evolution relies heavily on the disappearance of intermediate anything really.
This is a common creationist misconception, but we have no evidence that intermediates must go extinct, and there is nothing in what we know of evolutionary processes that requires it. We do know that the vast majority of species that have ever existed are extinct.
The term "intermediates" can be a confusing one within evolution. In a strict sense all species are intermediate between what they were and what they will be. The copying of genetic material during reproduction is imperfect, hence even asexual offspring are usually imperfect copies of their parent. In fact, during cell division where one might expect that one of the cells gets the original and perfect DNA, in reality each cell receives half the DNA helix, and errors happen as the DNA splits in half and as each cell recreates a full DNA helix. After the division both cells will often be imperfect copies of the original.
Since the copying of genetic material during reproduction is imperfect, no species breeds perfectly true. Slow and gradual change, usually termed drift in a relatively unchanging environment, is inevitable. It can't be stopped.
The need, in both a human and scientific sense, for classification as an aid to understanding and interpretation means that we find a fossil in the ground and give it a species name, but in reality that fossil was of a single representative of a population of a species that was in the midst of change that never ceases. All life is intermediate.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Mazzy, posted 06-21-2011 2:06 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Mazzy, posted 06-23-2011 2:31 PM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024