Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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?
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4590 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


(1)
Message 436 of 1075 (622094)
06-30-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by New Cat's Eye
06-21-2011 4:33 PM


These are pictures of kinds here today.
Why are you suggesting this is evidence of anything other than the creation of various kinds.
I have to go but I will speak to birds. Again simply stated your researchers have no clue. Some even challenge the dino to bird thing.
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/231/65/
Your whale evolution includes fossils of crocodiles as ambulocetus natans, Tiktaalic the fist land walker had predated tetrapod footprints, coelecanth is not walking around on the sea bed floor it is alive today.
I will have fun derailing this post tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-21-2011 4:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2011 4:20 PM Mazzy has not replied
 Message 438 by Taq, posted 06-30-2011 4:26 PM Mazzy has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 437 of 1075 (622096)
06-30-2011 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by Mazzy
06-30-2011 4:06 PM


These are pictures of kinds here today.
Yeah, transitional ones. I can't show a picture of an animal in the future...
And this exposes one of the issues with your "there's no transitionals today" assertion. Transitionals are between one thing and another, so any animal of today doesn't yet have the other form into which is transitioning because that's going to be in the future.
Why are you suggesting this is evidence of anything other than the creation of various kinds.
Clearly, the animals are in an "in-between" stage... A bird that can't fly, a lizard without legs, a sea-cow with a flipper in the back. If you won't accept anything as a transitional then your claim of there not being any is dubious and hallow.
I have to go but I will speak to birds.
That you talk to birds explains a lot, actually
Again simply stated your researchers have no clue.
At least they have a model and a theory. Your "researchers" have nothing at all but unsubstantiated assertions.
Your whale evolution includes fossils of crocodiles as ambulocetus natans, Tiktaalic the fist land walker had predated tetrapod footprints, coelecanth is not walking around on the sea bed floor it is alive today.
Mindless drivel...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Mazzy, posted 06-30-2011 4:06 PM Mazzy has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 438 of 1075 (622097)
06-30-2011 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by Mazzy
06-30-2011 4:06 PM


Your whale evolution includes fossils of crocodiles as ambulocetus natans,
This, coming from someone who can't tell the difference between a gorilla skull and H. erectus. Sorry, but your credibility is shot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Mazzy, posted 06-30-2011 4:06 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by Mazzy, posted 07-01-2011 2:58 PM Taq has not replied

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


Message 439 of 1075 (622100)
06-30-2011 4:34 PM


Mazzy, to repeat myself in referring to your post #346:
Mazzy:
Bovinae
Cephalophinae
Hippotraginae
Antilopinae
Caprinae
Reduncinae
Aepycerotinae
Peleinae
Alcelaphinae
Pantholopinae
Hominidae
These above are representative of kinds. A cow is Bovinae and a horse is from the family Equidae. Gorillas and humans are Hominidae.
- Fixed it for you. You're welcome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any argument whatever to counter my addition to your list?

"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by jar, posted 06-30-2011 4:39 PM Coragyps has not replied

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


Message 440 of 1075 (622103)
06-30-2011 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by Coragyps
06-30-2011 4:34 PM


There are human apes alive today.
And all this time I thought that there were human apes alive today, like Mazzie and you and me.
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Coragyps, posted 06-30-2011 4:34 PM Coragyps has not replied

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


(1)
Message 441 of 1075 (622107)
06-30-2011 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by Mazzy
06-29-2011 3:46 PM


Re: More evolved?
Mazzy,
I am starting to realize that your problem with human evolution has a lot to do with your distrust of the scientific method. I think this distrust stems from the fact that scientists will present arguments that detail their evidence for a claim while another scientist might detail evidence against that claim. It then appears that scientists really know nothing because they seem to constantly contradict each other. This misapprehension about the conflicting nature of human professionals and the scientific method leads to a conclusion that someone is lying to you. What’s worse (for us scientistsand maybe for you as well) is that you desire 100% certainty. It is a core of your belief system. On the other hand, while science might approach certainty, it will never achieve it.
Scientists realize that humans are fallible. We make mistakes; we misinterpret data; we draw wrong conclusions. (I am sure you would recognize this even within the Christian sphere with those who argue about saythe rapture. Look the arguments on post-tribulation versus pre-tribulation, etc.) It is why we developed, what we call, the scientific method. It is a way to mitigate those errors. We might move our understanding forward, through testing and verification, but it’s a never ending process. While we can’t help but make mistakes or misinterpret data, we can always rely on others to check up on us. We hold symposiums and present papers to committees and if other scientists look at our data and reach the same or similar conclusions, then we can be reasonably assured that we did some things right. Our assuredness might even grow greater the more people that look at our data and agree with our conclusions.
That doesn’t mean some upstart might not find data that they interpret as falsifying our conclusions. Then scientists will take a look at his/her data and reach their own conclusions on what it means and they might even come to support his conclusion. We continue to re-evaluate our data and see if we can poke holes in our own and other contradicting conclusions. Eventually a consensus comes around. This might take a long, long time, while other scientists look for more data and work out their own conclusions. The bottom line, though, is that we never know when some scientists, perhaps in the future, might find data that contradicts our conclusion. This process is the best way we know of right now, to develop our understanding of the world and universe we live in. Until there a better way is found, this is it.
I hope this helps with your understanding and misgivings you have about scientists and science in general. With this in mind, let’s try to answer some of your questions and conclusions.
mazzy writes:
Some of the most solid evidence for Ardi being included in the hominin branch is her small canine teeth. But the researchers are quick to point out that other ancient non-hominin species, including Oreopithecus and Ouranopithecus, also came to have reduced canine teeth, "presumably as a result of parallel shifts in dietary behavior in response to changing ecological conditions," the researchers suggest in their article. "Thus, these changes are in fact, not unique to hominins."
The placement of a hole at the base of the skull, known as the foramen magnum, also might suggest Ardi as an upright walker, and thus perhaps a solid hominin. But in looking to other apes, "this feature is more broadly associated with differences in head carriage and facial length, rather than uniquely with bipedalism," Wood and Harrison note. Some extinct primates, such as Oreopithecus bambolii, evolved outside of the human line but nevertheless possessed similarly hominin-like traits, which, the authors write, "encourage researchers to generate erroneous assumptions about evolutionary relationships.
Scientific American
That anthropologists disagree about where to place fossils within the evolutionary tree is indisputable. Especially when we don’t have all the data we need to strengthen our conclusions. In case you were unaware, the remaining fossil material from Aramis has not yet been described, so it seems a bit premature for you to be ascribing such certainty. It is also the case that Wood and Harrison are basically cautioning against the conclusion that A. ramidus belongs in the direct human line. They are clearly not making the conclusion that humans did not evolve. We also see that White supports his conclusion by noting that he was looking at the whole functional complexes and this is what drew his conclusion that A. ramidus belonged in the line leading to humans vice the line of the great apes.
Anyways, by itself, the placement of the foramen magnum forward under the skull is not conclusive evidence of a habitual biped. It is associated with bipedal locomotion though. Additionally, while A. ramidus has traits that are apelike, such as the jaw joint, deciduous molars, and a more pneumatized skull base, it does share derived traits with the hominin line. Taken together, these derived traits, including the placement of the foramen magnum, are what, I believe, White bases his conclusion on. You’re welcome to disagree, but it might behoove you to study the reasoning behind those disagreements before you determine they are valid.
I have also posted links to Lluc a flat faced primates and rebutted the fossil evidence as being either ape or human, with no intermediate all all being found.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/06/090602083729.htm
I don’t believe you rebutted what you think you’re rebutting. You did post a link to an article in which, the researchers note that, The extraordinary resemblance does not indicate that Anoiapithecus has any relationship with Homo and it just might be an example of convergence. Being that it is much older than the age we have determined to be for our common ancestor with Chimpanzees makes it likely as an evolutionary offshoot or a deadend. It might hold clues as to the region in which hominids first evolved, though. Namely, that Eurasia was the seat from which hominids radiated. Like all scientific endeavors, we await more data.
Ardi, meant to be very similar to the common ancestor, and thought to be in the human line that is a now being refuted is yet another example of lost intermediates, if not common ancestors.
Againonce again, the disagreements about the placement of fossils in the phylogenetic tree is not a falsification of evolution. Without DNA evidence it will be hard to determine whether what we see is due to convergence and parallel evolution and what is a direct ancestor. The farther back in time we go, the fuzzier the picture becomes for determining the exact line of descent. Until such time as we can gather more data (ex. Find more fossils) and tease out more DNA, that is just the nature of the science.
That doesn’t mean we can’t develop some of the picture of the evolutionary development of humans. For example, we can be reasonably sure that H. heidelbergensis is within our direct line and so isH. erectus, hence their inclusion in the genus Homo.
Mazzy writes:
we see that really evolutionary researchers themselves in their rebuttal of Darwinius as a human ancestor have confirmed that human traits have evolved multiple times and is not necessarily anything to do with human lineage, as I have asserted.
The thread is about the human line and human ape intermediates not being around. Evolutionary bla bla bla is not a refute to either of us. Any so called support for TOE could be delegated to the garbage bin of delusions at any time. This is not just headlines, This was research put up in 2009. Then boofheads have the hide to swear at you when it is they themselves that are ignorant.
here is another intermediate delegated to the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions, "Little foot"
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...61208-little-foot.html
ad nauseum
Asserting that a fossil is not within the direct evolutionary line leading to humans is totally different that asserting that there was NO line to begin with.
It might help if you could at least acknowledge that.
You evos have no intermediates and no common ancestors for the human line. What you do have is a hope list of support for human evolution. You HOPE it doesn't get tossed aside.
So basically, I see that it is some evolutionists here that are unable to defend their 'so called' evidence for evolution with any more than faith, and wish lists......
They are also unable to explain why there are no intermediates around today with any more than possibly likely and maybe.
Evos just know there aren't any intermediates here with us today and they need to explain it with what ever twoddle they can come up with.
While you are correct that we are still looking for the common ancestor between Chimpanzees and Humans, you are incorrect in asserting that we don’t have intermediates. All those fossil species labeled with the genus Homo are intermediates.
It is also wrong for you to claim that we are unable to explain why there are no intermediate species with us today. Basically it comes down to your own incredulity and intransigence.
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Mazzy, posted 06-29-2011 3:46 PM Mazzy has not replied

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


(1)
Message 442 of 1075 (622112)
06-30-2011 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Mazzy
06-29-2011 4:54 PM


More erectus?
Mazzy,
I understand that having a bunch of people respond to you can cause certain responses to be ignored or discounted. I would hope that you might negotiate through some of the responses I have offered, as they provide some detail into how anthropologists come to the conclusions they do.
The erectus fossil is only an ape. Turkana boy, however is human, and was not illustrated as it throws the nice crap line out of whack.
The fossil you know of as "Turkana boy", or KNM-WT-15000, is classified as either H. erectus or as H. ergaster. Those anthropologists who feel that H. erectus has enough morphologically differences to seperate it from H. ergaster believe that H. erectus is an offshoot of H. ergaster. Most of those who feel that H. ergaster is seperated morphologically from H. erectus view this species as on the direct line of descent to H. sapiens. Some of their reasons for concluding this might even overlap with your own. Of course, it might behoove you once again to take the time to try and actually study the reasoning behind those ideas and even read some of the scientists papers (not the journalists articles, but the actual scientific papers).
If you'd like I can look and see if I can find the original sources for some of those articles you find or have found, so that you can read what the scientists actually say.
I will repost this link as my support.
http://nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/...ion_error.php
The link above is not about whom is right or wrong but simply demonstrates that the vast majority, at least, of your support for human ancestry is questionable and refuteable.
"But researchers led by David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, now calculate that the split may have occurred no more than 6.3 million years ago, and possibly as recently as 5.4 million. That would make Touma older than the time of the split. "
I am sorry to have to tell you think but your conclusion is erroneous. Determining when exactly the time of the split between chimpanzees and humans happened does not discount that we actually did share a common ancestor at some time. All this is saying is that Toumai might not be in that direct line of descent. It would be like finding out you had a relative who was alive during the time of Copernicus but you don’t know if he was a direct ancestor or your ancestor’s cousin. At one time though, you shared a common ancestor, and isn’t that what matters?
So you all go figure it out and what you come up with will be another rave of possibly, likely and maybe. What dating do you choose to have faith in????????
In other words these researchers have no clue and are best guessing and hoping at best.
Overall, I feel creationists have the stronger basis for faith.
Science is tentative and no scientist is saying anything is 100% certain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Mazzy, posted 06-29-2011 4:54 PM Mazzy has not replied

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


(1)
Message 443 of 1075 (622117)
06-30-2011 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by Mazzy
06-30-2011 2:31 PM


Convergence
Similarly morphologically a human shares more physical characteristics with an orangutan than a chimp, and below is the research that supports the human/orang similarity.
First, notice that nobody in the article is stating that evolution did not happen nor does their hypothesis falsify evolution.
Second, notice that one of these two scientists making this hypothesis has been saying the same thing for 30 years, even in the face of mounting evidence he is probably wrong.
Third, notice that his conclusion would mean we would have to totally revamp our understanding of molecular genetics and thus our evolutionary relationships. Parsimony would suggest that this hypothesis just doesn’t hold water.
So here you have evolutionary researchers clearly stating firstly that genetic similarities can arise independently. We all have heard of genetic homology. Hence evolutionists are able to pull rabbits out of hat when it suits them. If what you find does not fit you invent convergent evolution or explain it away with a variety of concocted theories, rather than admit TOE is dead.
Secondly and more importantly in relation to your comment humans are morphologically more similar to an orang than a chimp.
Whether it is possible that genetic similarities arose [underline]independently[/underline] and that our conclusion that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related is in error, appears to me to be really grasping at straws.
Nobody invented convergence in evolution as some ‘get out of jail free’ card. Convergence happens and it doesn’t falsify evolution. In fact it is expected that species might develop convergent morphologies, especially if they share similar niches. For example: The Tasmanian Wolf is a marsupial, but as a top predator it has similar morphologies with placental top predators, such as the North American Wolf. We wouldn’t say they are directly related, as one is placental and one a marsupial, but that doesn’t mean they don’t share a relationship farther down the line of descent. After all, they are both mammals.
You’re welcome to come to the conclusion that humans are more related to orangutans than chimpanzees, but that still doesn’t falsify evolution. It might shuffle the deck a bit, but that isn’t inimical to the fact or theory of evolution.
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by Mazzy, posted 06-30-2011 2:31 PM Mazzy has not replied

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


(1)
Message 444 of 1075 (622121)
06-30-2011 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by Mazzy
06-30-2011 3:57 PM


Lumping versus splitting
What characterists demonstrated that Florensiensis was either a modern human or a homonid ape? Scientists are still debating this and really have no clue.
Only a minority of anthropologists, that I know of, are still suggesting that H. floresiensis was a modern human. Especially considering that they anthropologists have found more fossil bones from different individuals and this does not support the hypothesis that the dwarfism is due to a microcephalic individual. Microcephalipsy is rare and the chances of it striking all those individuals is so astronomical, as to be laughable.
That H. floresiensis is an example of dwarfism in H. erectus is our current understanding. That we have the remains of H. erectus (you knowJava Man) in close regional proximity to the remains of H. floresiensis as well as their behavior and remains, including smaller versions of Mode 1 tools that H. erectus was known to have used, leads us to the conclusion that they are directly related. That dwarfism and its opposite, gigantism, happens to species isolated on islands is beyond dispute. Why some might believe it couldn’t have happened to species related to us is beyond me.
Their desperation at clutching onto any feature, despite the fact that human features were around for 12my in LLuc, as displaying ancestry is straw grabbing at its best. It is likely that many of your homonids are just flatter faced apes. Much of your fossil evidence are chards of bone and bits reconstructed into what they want them to be.
Your welcome to believe all this, but it doesn’t make it true. No anthropologist is clutching at straws. The conclusions we come to are based on data, and supported by data. That doesn’t mean that we know the whole picture, and I really believe that this is your major beef with the science. 100% certainty can not be found in science. It is built to provide a certain level of likelihood, though, and that provides us with some confidence we are on the right path.
You would be amazed at what we can discern from fragments of bones. Knowing the shapes and sizes can tell us a lot about the species in question. It isn’t hocus pocus.
Really most of your Homo Erectus fossils are nothing more than a variety of gorilla, with a human thrown in here and there eg Turkana boy and possibly the little skull cap from Java man. These are just like those of an Australian Aboriginal and well within the variation of human skulls today that vary greatly. Don't forget your own researchers have problem telling the difference between man and ape fossils.
Evos have lumped them all together, as they do, while clearly there is huge difference between the varous erectus skull types. It is all woffle and desperation in an attempt to make the link from mankind to ape.
I will answer your post by saying this...Your reseachers have no clue what they are talking about. It is simply a case of the blind leading the blind in hope and faith that holds evolutionists together.
Don’t forget, we are all apes. We share derived traits with all apes today.
As far as H. erectus is concerned, you’re welcome to place him on the ancestral line leading to apes. It would be nice if you could support your conclusions with data though. That is specific enough that it might even be a good starting point for its own post. I’d even welcome a great debate (one-on-one) with you concerning that specific example.
DNA and morphological similarities that Australian Aborigines share with H. sapiens is more than enough to place them in H. sapiens, while the morphological differences between H. ergaster and H. sapiens are plenty for many, if not most, anthropologists to separate Turkana boy from H. sapiens. In other words, the Turkana boy fossil is much farther away from us, morphologically, than Australian aborigines could ever be.
"ScienceDaily (June 29, 2011) Modern humans never co-existed with Homo erectus -- a finding counter to previous hypotheses of human evolution -- new excavations in Indonesia and dating analyses show. The research, reported in the journal PLoS ONE, offers new insights into the nature of human evolution, suggesting a different role for Homo erectus than had been previously thought."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/06/110629181853.htm
The paper does suggest that H. sapiens and H. erectus never inhabited the region together. Pay attention to the word suggest though. The data might be faulty. Even in the case is that it is reasonably assured to be correct, other fossils or artifacts might be found that support the co-existence of H. erectus and H. sapiens. What it doesn’t mean is that they were not related. It doesn’t falsify them being genetic cousins.
Here is another link demonstrating your researchers have no clue.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/08/070813093132.htm
There is a difference between having no clue and shedding fresh light on a subject. Don’t confuse scientific uncertainty with cluelessness.
What the paper suggests is that H. habilis is in the direct line of descent, while H. erectus is an evolutionary offshoot. It suggests that H. erectus did not diverge from h. habilis but rather that they share some more distant common ancestor.
Once again, evolution isn’t falsified with this suggestion. It might shed more light on the subject of our direct ancestors though.
Really most of your Homo Erectus fossils are nothing more than a variety of gorilla, with a human thrown in here and there eg Turkana boy and possibly the little skull cap from Java man. These are just like those of an Australian Aboriginal and well within the variation of human skulls today that vary greatly. Don't forget your own researchers have problem telling the difference between man and ape fossils.
Evos have lumped them all together, as they do, while clearly there is huge difference between the varous erectus skull types. It is all woffle and desperation in an attempt to make the link from mankind to ape.
Would you be willing to enter into a Great Debate concerning your contention that H. erectus belongs in the genus Gorilla rather than on the evolutionary line of Homo?
I would gladly debate with you on that point, if you’re willing.
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Mazzy, posted 06-30-2011 3:57 PM Mazzy has not replied

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


(2)
Message 445 of 1075 (622123)
06-30-2011 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by Mazzy
06-30-2011 2:31 PM


Re: More evolved?
Mazzy writes:
I'll answer you first as you appear to be the more emotionally stable and able to debate without resorting to insults.
Which means if you were debating yourself, you wouldn't reply to yourself first.
Mazzy writes:
Percy the Linneaus system is based on the concept of ancestry.
No, it's not, it's based on morphology. If you don't believe me, then this is from the Wikipedia entry on Linneaus:
Wikipedia writes:
Linnaeus' groupings were based upon shared physical characteristics.
And this is from the Wikipedia entry on Linnaean taxonomy:
Wikipedia writes:
Linnaeus could only base his scheme on the structural similarities of the different organisms.
But I never said anything about Linnaean taxonomy. I think I said that in any biological classification system chimps, gorillas and humans would at some level be placed within the same group. If you think the evidence suggests that humans are actually more similar to orangutans then that's fine, too, and humans would instead be grouped with orangutans. The important principle that must be understood is that in any biological classification system similar organisms will be grouped together.
So since you mention orangutans I'll just mention that in the current classification system, humans, chimps, orangutans and gorillas are grouped in the Hominidae family, also known as the great apes. They are placed together because of shared characteristics and genetics. This means these species are more similar to each other than to any other life.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by Mazzy, posted 06-30-2011 2:31 PM Mazzy has not replied

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


Message 446 of 1075 (622146)
07-01-2011 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by Nuggin
06-26-2011 2:21 AM


Re: More evolved?
Can you show the evidence that apes had speech, language, logic, self awareness, conscience? Man is unique in his capacity to speak, to write language, to record facts and figures, to build amazing structures and to overcome and expand his environment. He is able to create, to reason, to assess, to calculate and to invent.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Nuggin, posted 06-26-2011 2:21 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by Percy, posted 07-01-2011 7:54 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 450 by Taq, posted 07-01-2011 12:07 PM Portillo has not replied
 Message 451 by jar, posted 07-01-2011 12:29 PM Portillo has not replied
 Message 452 by Nuggin, posted 07-01-2011 12:58 PM Portillo has replied
 Message 454 by DBlevins, posted 07-01-2011 2:51 PM Portillo has not replied

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


(1)
Message 447 of 1075 (622149)
07-01-2011 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 431 by Mazzy
06-30-2011 3:57 PM


Mazzy, post #375 writes:
It is not so much that evolutionists like to give every variation a new name and call it a different species. What urkes me is that you use this to suggest macroevolution from ape to man.
Mazzy, post #431 writes:
Evos have lumped them all together, as they do, while clearly there is huge difference between the varous erectus skull types. It is all woffle and desperation in an attempt to make the link from mankind to ape.
Would it be too much to ask for you to introduce a little more consistency into your paranoid fantasies?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Mazzy, posted 06-30-2011 3:57 PM Mazzy has not replied

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


(1)
Message 448 of 1075 (622150)
07-01-2011 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 446 by Portillo
07-01-2011 6:10 AM


Re: More evolved?
Portillo writes:
Can you show the evidence that apes had speech, language, logic, self awareness, conscience? Man is unique in his capacity to speak, to write language, to record facts and figures, to build amazing structures and to overcome and expand his environment. He is able to create, to reason, to assess, to calculate and to invent.
Every species has unique qualities that differentiate it from other species. The human brain is one of the qualities that makes humans unique
Humans are grouped with other apes because of the qualities they share as a group, such as large brains, taillessness, structure of the hands and feet, lengthy adolescent period, and no particular breeding season. They're also grouped together because genetic analysis reveals that their DNA is more similar to each other than to any other life.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Portillo, posted 07-01-2011 6:10 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-01-2011 8:00 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 449 of 1075 (622151)
07-01-2011 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 448 by Percy
07-01-2011 7:54 AM


Re: More evolved?
Every species has unique qualities that differentiate it from other species. The human brain is one of the qualities that makes humans unique
Humans are grouped with other apes because of the qualities they share as a group, such as large brains, taillessness, structure of the hands and feet, lengthy adolescent period, and no particular breeding season. They're also grouped together because genetic analysis reveals that their DNA is more similar to each other than to any other life.
If you read back through the series of posts, he's not asking about extant apes but about our ape-man ancestors. What he wants to know is to what extent the intermediate forms displayed the intellectual traits pre-eminent in modern humans.
To some extent want must be his master, since traits such as "conscience" are hardly likely to fossilize.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Percy, posted 07-01-2011 7:54 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 450 of 1075 (622163)
07-01-2011 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by Portillo
07-01-2011 6:10 AM


Re: More evolved?
Can you show the evidence that apes had speech, language, logic, self awareness, conscience? Man is unique in his capacity to speak, to write language, to record facts and figures, to build amazing structures and to overcome and expand his environment. He is able to create, to reason, to assess, to calculate and to invent.
What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Chimps and orangutans are able to move through trees much more easily than gorillas. Does this mean that gorillas are not apes?
You need to remember that life is categorized based on shared characteristics. When you list the characteristics shared by all apes you also list characteristics found in humans. You can not describe all apes without also describing humans.
To use a less contentious species group, would you cite the differences between chihuahuas and great danes to argue that neither is a dog?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Portillo, posted 07-01-2011 6:10 AM Portillo 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