Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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?
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 226 of 1075 (621069)
06-23-2011 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Portillo
06-23-2011 1:01 AM


Re: More evolved?
What your saying is that everything evolves according to its own purposes and needs, but surely there are degrees of evolution.
No, there are not levels.
Does pond scum think? Does it have speech, self reflection, self awareness, can it investigate the earth and universe?
No but can you float indefinitely on the water, make your food straight from the sun, create oxygen?
Do you think you are better than pond scum? Is that your problem boobie?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Portillo, posted 06-23-2011 1:01 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Portillo, posted 06-23-2011 7:34 PM jar has replied

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


Message 227 of 1075 (621070)
06-23-2011 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Wounded King
06-23-2011 6:13 AM


Re: Lions find a way
Those crafty little buggers! Fair enough, they still don't live in the sahara, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Wounded King, posted 06-23-2011 6:13 AM Wounded King has not replied

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 228 of 1075 (621089)
06-23-2011 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Percy
06-22-2011 8:58 AM


Percy, I think evo theory relies on disappearances more than you suggest. For example there is no Lucy, no Ardi, no homo erectus or anything else in between here today, just us humans and the apes. They look fairly distinct to me.
What your research tells you is that humans are not related to any species of ape alive today. Hence the evolutionary need for all the intermediates to have gone extinct. This is all a branching thing, Right? Yet no other group is half human. Even isolated tribes are fully human, including pygmies.
Intermediates that are proposed as intermediates are generally not intermediates at all. Let's look at Pakicetus and Indohyus, the same representation appears for both. They appear to be a variety of mouse deer when you look at the fossils without the biased sketched representation.
BBC - Earth News - Aquatic deer and ancient whales
The mouse deer swims in water to escape prey, and for this reason will have some aquatic traits. It has nothing to do with morphing into a whale. Then there is the next cab off the rank in Ambulocetus natans. When you look at the fossils and compare them to the skeleton of a crocodile, that's what Ambulocetus is. Ambulocetus is a variety of crocodile, and nothing more. So basically your researchers have found evidence of two totally different kinds and misrepresented them as ancestrally related. This is what I refer to as straw grabbing and wish listing, if not fraudulent misrepresentation to the community.
So you say all life is intermediate. Do you think Gould was a flip? He maintains that species go through long periods of stasis and then change and invented PE to explain the fossil record. The change is generally associated with a totally different kinds that appears not related at all, just like Indohyus and ambulocetus natans.
Your comment on Darwinian gradual change is outdated. Everyone knows this, even me
Retired Service | The University of Vermont
The genomic bottlenecks that are required to explain the lack of human genetic diversity have been sunk with the finding of the same species represented alive and well after many catastrophes including Toba and KT. I can find and post the research if you are unaware of it, although the next link speaks to a weak correlation with climatic change and extinction anyway..
"The overall picture is that the main response to major environmental changes is individualistic movement and changes in abundance, rather than extinction or speciation. In other words, the connection between environmental change and evolutionary change is weak, which is not what might have been expected from Darwin's hypothesis."
http://www.newscientist.com/...haos-theory-of-evolution.html
For me the obvious and most parsinomous reason why there are no ape men around today is because mankind did not evolve from apes.
.
Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 06-22-2011 8:58 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by DrJones*, posted 06-23-2011 2:42 PM Mazzy has replied
 Message 230 by AZPaul3, posted 06-23-2011 5:36 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 231 by DBlevins, posted 06-23-2011 5:37 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 232 by Nuggin, posted 06-23-2011 6:07 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 246 by Percy, posted 06-24-2011 7:16 AM Mazzy has not replied

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


Message 229 of 1075 (621090)
06-23-2011 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Mazzy
06-23-2011 2:31 PM


What your research tells you is that humans are not related to any species of ape alive today
Well thats not true at all. We're related to all the apes alive today.

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 228 by Mazzy, posted 06-23-2011 2:31 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Mazzy, posted 06-25-2011 6:32 PM DrJones* has replied

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


Message 230 of 1075 (621097)
06-23-2011 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Mazzy
06-23-2011 2:31 PM


What your research tells you is that humans are not related to any species of ape alive today.
Why the lie?
Great ape relationships
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appologies. Let me start again.
Another study here.
An essay on the evidence
Tree of Life Web Project with just a whole ton of references for this relationship
Was this opinion of yours formed based on some disagreement with the plethora of studies (see short listing above) documenting the fact of a very close evolutionary relathionship among the present hominids (which includes Homo sapiens) or are you just too damn *** to do any research at all before spouting this kind of garbage?
Edited by AZPaul3, : kinder gentler me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Mazzy, posted 06-23-2011 2:31 PM Mazzy has not replied

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


(1)
Message 231 of 1075 (621098)
06-23-2011 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Mazzy
06-23-2011 2:31 PM


Intermediates and Stasis
I think evo theory relies on disappearances more than you suggest. For example there is no Lucy, no Ardi, no homo erectus or anything else in between here today, just us humans and the apes. They look fairly distinct to me.
Species go extinct. There is nothing unusual or controversial about that. Nothing in evolutionary theory says that a species must go extinct or must survive in order for there to be another species. Evolution does deal with reproductive success, and if a species can continue to survive and reproduce then it will do so. Obviously, the other Hominins were unable to do so.
As far as the distinctness of the other Hominins is concerned, that is why they are labeled as different species. We look at their bone morphology and compare their anatomy to try to determine where they fit in our evolutionary heritage. That's why you hear people talk about shared and derived traits. The more traits we share with our ancestors the closer they are to us evoltutionarily. You seem to have a subset of the common misconception of "Why are monkey's still around if we descended from them?" What I hope you might realise is that, over time, species beget other species...populations evolve but that doesn't mean the "begetting" species necessarily disappears.
Let me be clearer with an example of what we call "allopatric speciation." Species #1 might consist of various groups spread out over a geographical area, say group 1A, group 1B, and 1C. If something should happen to make Group 1C unable to reproduce with group 1A or 1B, then group 1C will start diverging and over time change enough to become its own species. Taken long enough, those changes might become more dramatic, and possibly, form groups that themselves might speciate, creating an even greater divergence from the original Species #1. There are other ways that species are created, but I hope you get the picture.
What your research tells you is that humans are not related to any species of ape alive today. Hence the evolutionary need for all the intermediates to have gone extinct. This is all a branching thing, Right? Yet no other group is half human. Even isolated tribes are fully human, including pygmies.
You are mistaken in your belief that research tells us that humans are not related to apes. (In fact we share relationships with ALL animals, living and extinct...it is just the distance of the evolutionary relationship that is different) We share a significant and close evolutionary relationship with the Great Apes. In fact our DNA shows significant and remarkable similarities with those of the Chimpanzees, upwards of 90%+. Looking at the genetic changes (the mutational changes that occur on a relatively steady basis) between us and chimpanzees has also pointed to our divergence roughly 6-9 million years ago. Lo and behold, we happen to have fossils that share traits between us and chimpanzees that appear around about that time range and that also provide us with details on the morphological changes that took place as different Hominins evolved, and eventually our species' appearance in the fossil record.
Once again, we are ALL intermediates. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. You are different than your parents and you from your children, and so on and so on. Think about this: Have you ever constructed a family tree? Within this family tree there would be members who passed away and members who remain alive. Just because they have children doesn't mean they ceased to exist. Similar to this, is the tree of evolution, but in a much larger scale. And like your family tree there are some species who died out, and some species that still exist. There is no need for your parents to cease to exist in order for you to exist and the same goes for species in evolution.
quote:
I'm going to skip over the whale evolution bit and focus on your problems with human evolution. I am sure there are others who are more intimately informed in that subject or have the patience to pursue that line of thought. Moving on...
  —DB
So you say all life is intermediate. Do you think Gould was a flip? He maintains that species go through long periods of stasis and then change and invented PE to explain the fossil record.
As I understand it, Gould felt that our current fossil record was incomplete because species, minus some evolutionary pressure, will retain their forms. IIRC he doesn't say they don't evolve. He says that they're anatomy remains in a period of statis until something causes them to change, and that change is usually rapid, in the evolutionary sense. But, again, just because species stay the way they are anatomically, doesn't mean they are not evolving. Evolution doesn't require species to have profound changes in their anatomy. If it works for the species then chances are they will keep that form. That isn't to say that they don't evolve. Changes in allele frequencies continue to happen. Mutations continue to happen.
The genomic bottlenecks that are required to explain the lack of human genetic diversity have been sunk with the finding of the same species represented alive and well after many catastrophes including Toba and KT. I can find and post the research if you are unaware of it, although the next link speaks to a weak correlation with climatic change and extinction anyway..
I am not sure what you are saying here. That bottlenecks happen is undisputed. Whether humans went through a bottleneck caused by Toba is just a theory, and not everyone agrees. What does seem clear is that humans experienced a period of low population at sometime and possibly even in various times in our evolution and this may be an explanation for our relatively low degree of genetic diversity. Supporting the Toba theory is the genetic evidence from other African species who also experienced some type of catastrophic event at around the time of the Toba eruption. The jury is still out though and we might never have the full picture. In any case, I am sure that I along with many others would appreciate you sharing any link to research supporting your understanding.
"The overall picture is that the main response to major environmental changes is individualistic movement and changes in abundance, rather than extinction or speciation. In other words, the connection between environmental change and evolutionary change is weak, which is not what might have been expected from Darwin's hypothesis."
Page not found | New Scientist
It's my personal opinion that the quote above would best be answered in a separate topic. While it does speak to issues regarding evolution, it appears to me after reading it that it doesn't address the issue of your central premise, being: "Why do we not see human ancestors today?"
Maybe in one of the topics concerning the Molecular Clock? or one of the more general evolutionary topics?
For me the obvious and most parsinomous reason why there are no ape men around today is because mankind did not evolve from apes.
Then I would posit that you don't understand how we determine evolutionary relatedness and how parsimony is involved.
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Mazzy, posted 06-23-2011 2:31 PM Mazzy has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 232 of 1075 (621101)
06-23-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Mazzy
06-23-2011 2:31 PM


I think evo theory relies on disappearances more than you suggest. For example there is no Lucy, no Ardi, no homo erectus or anything else in between here today, just us humans and the apes. They look fairly distinct to me.
What your research tells you is that humans are not related to any species of ape alive today. Hence the evolutionary need for all the intermediates to have gone extinct. This is all a branching thing, Right? Yet no other group is half human. Even isolated tribes are fully human, including pygmies.
There are three factors you are not taking into consideration.
First, there are just as many extinct ape missing links for pre-gorillas, pre-chimps, pre-orangs. It's not like there were gorillas, chimps and orangs walking around with Lucy and we're the only one's that changed. ALL these groups have been evolving and leaving behind extinct branches in their wake.
Second, fully modern humans are extremely intolerant of competition. We kill off competitors at an alarming rate. That goes for other apex predators, but it also goes for other groups of humans.
Second (b), we're also extremely xenophobic and fail to see anything which is slightly different as being like us. The Dutch settlers in Africa kind and ate "bush monkeys" - or as you would call them today PEOPLE.
Third, depending on how you classify humans, you could argue that there are different groups. True Africans are pure homo sapiens, while Europeans still carry Neanderthal DNA, and in New Guinea something like 15% of the genome is from the new group discovered out of Siberia.
The mouse deer swims in water to escape prey, and for this reason will have some aquatic traits. It has nothing to do with morphing into a whale.
Escaping predation is less of a factor in evolution than exploiting new resources. Escaping predators will refine characteristics within a group more often than it will lead to new groups.
However, a group of rats that come to a new island where there is fruit on the ground and nuts up in the trees will likely end up splitting into two different groups each specializing in one of these niches.
In the case of whales, these were semi-aquatic mammals which were exploiting aquatic resources - that is what drove their evolution.
When you look at the fossils and compare them to the skeleton of a crocodile, that's what Ambulocetus is. Ambulocetus is a variety of crocodile, and nothing more.
To the uneducated who are giving the bones a completely superficial glance, maybe.
However, there are specific things you can look at that can make a distinction.
I'll use a specific example citing a different group of animals. Beavers, mice, gerbals, rabbits and capybara are all rodents. Shrews, hedgehogs and moles are not.
Moles, shrews and mice clearly look a lot more like one another than mice look like capybaras.
But, size and shape are not the only things you look at.
All rodents have teeth than continue to grow. It's their most defining characteristic.
Sort of like, all birds have feathers and only birds have feathers - therefore bats are no birds even though they have wings.
Get it?
Crocodiles are reptiles. Ambulocetus was not a reptile. It's legs are in the wrong position, it's teeth are the wrong kind.
Two things can look superficially alike and not be related. That's why specialists pay so much attention to the bones.
So you say all life is intermediate. Do you think Gould was a flip? He maintains that species go through long periods of stasis and then change and invented PE to explain the fossil record. The change is generally associated with a totally different kinds that appears not related at all, just like Indohyus and ambulocetus natans.
Just because everything is intermediate doesn't mean there has to be a steady state of change.
When new resources become available, or old ones disappear, then change happens more rapidly because those animals which don't change, don't thrive.
Ant-eaters don't change much. That's because ants and termites have been around forever. They are a food source which will never go away. Unless they face some new competition or a change in their food supply, ant-eaters are perfectly suited to do what they do. No force is driving their change.
The genomic bottlenecks that are required to explain the lack of human genetic diversity have been sunk with the finding of the same species represented alive and well after many catastrophes including Toba and KT.
Surviving a disaster as a species does not mean that all members survived. If a comet were to hit NYC and only 100 people survived, they would not perfectly represent the genetic diversity which is currently in NYC.
"The overall picture is that the main response to major environmental changes is individualistic movement and changes in abundance, rather than extinction or speciation. In other words, the connection between environmental change and evolutionary change is weak, which is not what might have been expected from Darwin's hypothesis."
That statement misses the point
For example, "individualistic movement". How exactly to plants leave an area? Or how about animals which live on an island? How does any species leave "shrinking arctic snowcover"?
AND...
Changes in abundance means a change in the niches which can be exploited by a particular species. That DRIVES evolution, it doesn't contradict it.
For me the obvious and most parsinomous reason why there are no ape men around today is because mankind did not evolve from apes.
That doesn't come close to addressing issues like ERVs, genetic similarities, the fossil record, etc.
It strikes me that you are drawing your conclusions based on a complete unwillingness to learn the facts rather than an assessment of the facts.
Let me guess, you're very religious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Mazzy, posted 06-23-2011 2:31 PM Mazzy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by DBlevins, posted 06-23-2011 6:31 PM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 233 of 1075 (621103)
06-23-2011 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Nuggin
06-23-2011 6:07 PM


Reptiles and Mammals
Just as an aside, Reptile's and mammal's bone growth is also different and differences can be seen in the fossils. Ie. During periods of cold, when reptiles grow slower, their bones form denser layers. Much like tree rings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Nuggin, posted 06-23-2011 6:07 PM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 234 of 1075 (621106)
06-23-2011 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by jar
06-23-2011 9:16 AM


Re: More evolved?
quote:
No, there are not levels.
So every living and perhaps non living thing are all 100% equally evolved?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by jar, posted 06-23-2011 9:16 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by jar, posted 06-23-2011 7:44 PM Portillo has not replied
 Message 236 by hooah212002, posted 06-23-2011 7:48 PM Portillo has not replied
 Message 237 by AZPaul3, posted 06-23-2011 7:51 PM Portillo has not replied
 Message 238 by DBlevins, posted 06-23-2011 8:00 PM Portillo has not replied
 Message 242 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-23-2011 8:39 PM Portillo has not replied

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


Message 235 of 1075 (621108)
06-23-2011 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Portillo
06-23-2011 7:34 PM


Re: More evolved?
Well only living things can be talked about when we are talking about biological evolution.
There is no such thing as more or less evolved, that simply doesn't even make any sense.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Portillo, posted 06-23-2011 7:34 PM Portillo has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 236 of 1075 (621109)
06-23-2011 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Portillo
06-23-2011 7:34 PM


Re: More evolved?
You've not read a single link any of us has provided you, have you? You may, just maybe, want to get at least a basic grasp of what the theory of evolution says.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Portillo, posted 06-23-2011 7:34 PM Portillo has not replied

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


Message 237 of 1075 (621111)
06-23-2011 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Portillo
06-23-2011 7:34 PM


Re: More evolved?
So every living and perhaps non living thing are all 100% equally evolved?
If by 100% you mean have they evolved to their present attributes then ... obviously. If you are suggesting that evolution is complete and will now stop then only if a species goes extinct will its evolution stop. More change is on the way.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : mor spelin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Portillo, posted 06-23-2011 7:34 PM Portillo has not replied

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


Message 238 of 1075 (621112)
06-23-2011 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Portillo
06-23-2011 7:34 PM


Re: More evolved?
So every living and perhaps non living thing are all 100% equally evolved?
What do you mean "equally evolved"? (We'll ignore the non-living as they don't evolve) You seem to be equating evolution with either some great "chain of being" or the concept of evolution as a ladder, with humans at the top or perhaps a combination of the two.
Pondscum, or algea, has evolved to take advantage of the pond niche. It is a photoautotroph and survives in aquatic environments. It is a successful organism. Humans are also successful organisms in our niche. That isn't saying that one or the other is better than the other on some grand scale. Both of us are able to reproduce successfully. Whether our offspring survive is all that matters. Should some catastrophy happen that wipes out humans, algea may well survive. Having brains doesn't gaurantee our species will 'outlive' algea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Portillo, posted 06-23-2011 7:34 PM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by jar, posted 06-23-2011 8:16 PM DBlevins has replied

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


Message 239 of 1075 (621114)
06-23-2011 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by DBlevins
06-23-2011 8:00 PM


Re: More evolved?
We are certainly not as successful as cockroaches.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by DBlevins, posted 06-23-2011 8:00 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by DBlevins, posted 06-23-2011 8:28 PM jar has replied

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


Message 240 of 1075 (621115)
06-23-2011 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by jar
06-23-2011 8:16 PM


Re: More evolved?
What are you measuring success by? I think you are falling into the same trap that Portillo is caught in except he seems to be measuring success by our cultural achievements or our "brain power."
Do you measure success by number of individuals? While the ability to populate a large geographic area might help a species be successful, it doesn't guarantee future success.
The point being; We are just as successful as all other living species until we're not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by jar, posted 06-23-2011 8:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by jar, posted 06-23-2011 8:34 PM DBlevins 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