Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9159 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Post Volume: Total: 915,009 Year: 2,266/9,624 Month: 111/1,588 Week: 40/267 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0


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

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 1075 (621174)
06-24-2011 10:17 AM


more evolved / less evolved
Take two species today and their last common ancestor. Quanitfy the differences in genomes between the current species and the ancestor. The species with more changes to its genome is more evolved than the other.
Problema?

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2011 10:50 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 249 by frako, posted 06-24-2011 11:01 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 250 by Taq, posted 06-24-2011 11:12 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 1075 (621223)
06-24-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by AZPaul3
06-24-2011 10:50 AM


Re: more evolved / less evolved
The regulars here know you understand this, CS, so I have to question the quibble.
Oh, just a little pedantry for the sake of brevity, Paul
Your usage can be seen as technically correct. Portillo's is most certainly not.
I'm not interested in how Portillo is wrong, I used the General Reply to seperate my point from his misunderstandings.
Everybody's really digging their heels in on this absolute claim of "no such thing as more evolved" and, I think that it can be seen as technically incorrect.
"More" change does not mean "more" evolved.
Evolution *is* change...
Hey, I see here where Percy has been making this same point, Message 214:
quote:
But there is yet another way of looking at it in which you are correct. If you measure the percent of difference between the common ancestor and pond scum, and also for the common ancestor and human beings, then there would likely be a much greater difference with human beings.
I don't see a problem with that, in particular.

In Message 249, frako writes:
The Amoeba has more gens then a human so comparing the changes that acured with our last common ancestor the first cell would make the amoeba more evolved then humans ???
Yes! Exactly.
The only way i see to measure how evolved something is would be to measure its reproductive success in a given environment. And i still doubt this method would be good enough.
That seems like it'd be something you'd have to measure for the individuals, rather than the population like we should be considering.

In Message 250, Tag writes:
More divergent does not equal more evolved. Selection of already existing features is as much evolution as selection of new features.
I don't think so. Stasis is a lack of evolution. The more static a species is, the less it is evolving, imho. Is that really just wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2011 10:50 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by AZPaul3, posted 06-24-2011 3:22 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 275 by Taq, posted 06-24-2011 4:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 1075 (621224)
06-24-2011 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by DBlevins
06-24-2011 2:26 PM


Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
It sounds like you're saying that an extinct species would not be considered transitional, which would rule out all extinct transitional forms
Not necessarily, if the decendents of that extinct transition still exist then it would still be a transitional even thought that particular form of the species no longer exists.
The exception to the tranistionals would be species that went extinct and didn't have any decendents at all.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : typos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by DBlevins, posted 06-24-2011 2:26 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by DBlevins, posted 06-24-2011 2:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 1075 (621226)
06-24-2011 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 1:41 PM


Re: More evolved?
One of the reasons I do not frequent here much is because I am unabe to post pictures, while others can.
In addition to the help Percy provided you in Message 255, I think its worth pointing out that images have to already be hosted somewhere on the internet. You can't post images from your harddrive without going through a hosting service.
Places like Imgur: The magic of the Internet, or Photobucket, or... well there's all kinds of image hosting websites out there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 1:41 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 3:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 1075 (621245)
06-24-2011 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by DBlevins
06-24-2011 2:58 PM


Re: If Extinct then not transitional?
Ah yes, I didn't notice that you were talking about transition forms while I was thinking of transitional species.
Archy might not be a transitional species, but it is still a transitional form.
Good point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by DBlevins, posted 06-24-2011 2:58 PM DBlevins has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 273 of 1075 (621248)
06-24-2011 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Mazzy
06-24-2011 3:02 PM


Re: More evolved?
The reason there are no mid human ape species is because mankind did not evolve from apes. Biblical Creationists have the most parsinomous explanation and evolutionists have yet to explain with flavours of the year.
That's how I see it anyway!
Can you at least admit that Biblical Creationists have the same amount of evidence for their version of creation as the Pastafarians do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Mazzy, posted 06-24-2011 3:02 PM Mazzy has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 1075 (621256)
06-24-2011 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Taq
06-24-2011 4:24 PM


Re: more evolved / less evolved
What seems to be confused is the process vs. the end result.
I'm talking about the end results.
Every lineage has been influenced by the process of evolution, but the end result of that process is different for each lineage.
Can't we say that some species have been influenced more than others? That they've gone through more changes?
Haven't whales gone through more changes than some fish?
Random thought: On a totally different aspect, what about species that are better adapted to their particular niche? Couldn't describing that as being more evolved to that niche make sense?
As an analogy, if a random number generator spit out a series of numbers would the highest number be called the most random? Of course not. All numbers are equally random even if some numbers are larger than others. They are all products of the same process.
What I'd be judging is the output of number. The more varience between the numbers, the more random they would be. Like, 1-2-2-1-1, would be less random than 3-6-1-5-2. Or does that not make any sense at all? I realize that its the same process, but couldn't the end result be described as such?
However, there is a term that does describe what people are trying to get at, and it is the term that scientists actually use. That word is "derived". A more derived species is one that has more changes than sister species as compared to the common ancestor. This would make modern bacteria less derived than humans since modern bacteria share more features with the common ancestor of bacteria and humans than humans do. Does that make sense?
Yes! I do think that is a better word to use in this scenario. It would at least result in less confusion.
I don't think so. Stasis is a lack of evolution.
False. The only way that stasis can occur is through evolution. Stasis is the selection of alleles found in previous generations. Without evolution the prevalence of alleles from previous generations would be swamped by variation found in each subsequent generation.
That's actually a really good point... in that there'd have to be some selective pressure to maintain the statis from being overridden by genetic drift. I hadn't thought of that. That kinda ties in to my random thought above, in that being better adapted to a niche might be a result of avoiding change.
On the other hand, what about a species that, for whatever reason, did not experience as much mutation as normal, and also had very little selective pressure. If the genome remained relatively unchanged for a long time, despite selective pressure, wouldn't it make sense to say that it isn't evolving as much? I realize that's stretching but I'm just exploring here.
Thanks for chiming in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Taq, posted 06-24-2011 4:24 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Taq, posted 06-24-2011 4:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 1075 (621261)
06-24-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Taq
06-24-2011 4:54 PM


Re: more evolved / less evolved
Alrighty then.
Well, having the phrase "more derived" to better describe the concept than "more evolved" does will work for me, so thanks again for the replies.
I'm convinced that "more evolved" isn't good phraseology so I'll replace it with "more derived" in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Taq, posted 06-24-2011 4:54 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by DBlevins, posted 06-24-2011 5:17 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 284 by Taq, posted 06-24-2011 5:35 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 417 of 1075 (621930)
06-29-2011 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by Mazzy
06-29-2011 3:46 PM


Re: More evolved?
They are also unable to explain why there are no intermediates around today with any more than possibly likely and maybe.
Manatees, Emus, Pinguins, etc.
Message 194 never got a reply...
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.
Holy shit, you can read minds!?
That is so cool.

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

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 420 of 1075 (621935)
06-29-2011 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Mazzy
06-29-2011 4:34 PM


Re: More evolved?
This might be too far of an aside, but if humans didn't evolve from another species, then how did we get here? I know the answer is God did it, but how? Did we just magically appear fully formed one day? There's no way that could work...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Mazzy, posted 06-29-2011 4:34 PM Mazzy has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 430 of 1075 (622087)
06-30-2011 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by Mazzy
06-30-2011 2:33 PM


Re: More evolved?
you do not even have any intermediates anymore
Message 196

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by Mazzy, posted 06-30-2011 2:33 PM Mazzy has not 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

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 455 of 1075 (622189)
07-01-2011 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 452 by Nuggin
07-01-2011 12:58 PM


non-human smartness
I remember reading something (in Discover magazine I believe - I'll find it for you if you need me to once I have the time) about a study with birds where the bird was given a wire and a bottle with a treat inside. The birds had to bend the wire a certain way, then use it as a hook, to get the treat out.
Not the exact thing you mention, but close enough:
\
There's also this use of tools in the wild:
Pretty damn impressive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Nuggin, posted 07-01-2011 12:58 PM Nuggin has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 456 of 1075 (622190)
07-01-2011 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by Mazzy
07-01-2011 2:49 PM


Re: More evolved?
the chimp is absolutely nothing like us.
But of course, you're just making up bullshit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by Mazzy, posted 07-01-2011 2:49 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by Mazzy, posted 07-01-2011 3:07 PM New Cat's Eye 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