|Thread ▼ Details
|Topic: Why are there no human apes alive today?
Member Rating: 10.0
If humans really did evolve from human apes then why are there no human apes alive today ( or well atleast no known) ?
This is a very, very common question.
Think of all life on Earth as part of one super-gigantic family tree. If you go back far enough, we all share a common ancestor - even the bacteria, the plants, us, your dog, etc.
Have you heard of taxonomy? Terms like "genus," "phyla," "family," species?" We group organisms according to their common features, and it helps us see where new branches of the family tree formed.
But just like your family tree, some branches die out. In evolutionary terms, this can happen for any number of reasons - but typically it means that either the population of Species A slowly changed over multiple generations into Species B, or after Species B branched off, an environmental change occurred that allowed Species B to out-compete Species A until A died off.
Let's try an example.
Imagine that we have two populations of horses. They're geographically separated enough that the two populations cannot interbreed, meaning any new mutations will remain only within their respective populations. If Group A has a minor mutation that makes brown spots appear on their coat, for example, that mutation may spread over several generations and become very common among Group A through interbreeding - but it will never come to Group B, because the two groups do not interbreed.
Now let's suppose that the brown spots make those horses who have them more difficult to spot, acting as a sort of camouflage and defending against predators. This would mean that the spot mutation woudl spread rather quickly among Group A - those horses with the spots are far more likely to avoid predators and survive long enough to breed, thus spawning a new generation of spotted horses, while those horses in Group A who do not have the spots will be more likely to be killed by those predators. Group B will remain the same - without interbreeding, the spot mutation will not cross over, and while it's possible an identical mutation could arise in the other population on its own, its very unlikely.
So we started with two populations (Group A and Group B), and now we have three (Group A/Spotted, Group A/Unspotted, and Group B), with one of the populations (Group A/Unspotted) rapidly "dying out" as they're either killed by predators or continue to interbreed with their spotted cousins and having spotted offspring.
The horses we just talked about aren't necessarily different species - the term species usually refers to two different populations that are genetically distinct enough that they cannot produce fertile offspring. But the example does illustrate how an ancestor population does not necessarily survive, while distant cousin-species and descendant-species do survive.
We could use bacteria as another example. I'm sure you've head of the so-called "superbugs" in the news - the bacterial strains that have developed resistance to specific antibiotics. We experiment with this regularly. Remember, bacteria reproduce by copying themselves - theoretically, if you start with a single bacterium, just one cell, all of its offspring should be identical clones of the original (this is one of the observable demonstrations of mutation, as well). If we begin with an ordinary bacterium that's perfectly susceptible to antibiotics, and let it reproduce for a while into a large population, mutations will begin to accumulate in the offspring. Most of these will have no effect. But typically, at least a few of them will have a small mutation that makes them at least a little more resistant to antibiotics than their brothers and cousins. If we apply an antibiotic to the population, the vast majority will die...except for the resistant individuals, which now have absolutely no competition and will thrive where before they were a tiny minority. In this way the ancestor completely dies off, while the descendant thrives. It's a rather extreme example, but it does correlate to significant environmental changes in nature (temperature changes, geographic migration, new predators, etc) where previously neutral mutations can suddenly have a significant survival advantage.
It's rather difficult (and would be far too time-consuming) to go into why each "ape-man" species died out while we and some of our very distant cousins survived. Sometimes interbreeding causes the entire population to change. Sometimes the ancestor species is totally out-competed until they die off. Other things happen (like natural disasters for species that are not widely distributed geographically) as well.
How come the chimpanzees and the orangutangs and the gorillas survived untill this day practically staying the same shape ( I havent got any information about the monkeys evolution in the past) While more advanced forms of semi humans died out ore evolved ?
That's a significant misconception: they didn't.
Chimps, orangutans, and gorillas all came from the same common ancestor we did, and they've been changing as well. Other branches have developed and died out. The apes we see today (including us - remember, we are primates as well) are simply those species that have continued to survive in our respective environments. You'll find that there are many extant species of apes, all related to varying degrees.
I mean. There is only 1 species of humans today. I can get kids with anyone of the races i would like but there is really only one known. I think it doesen't make sence at all.
How would the primitive apes have survied along side with the most advanced form of humans. While all the semi humans died out ?
"Most advanced" is not a very accurate term. We like to think of ourselves as "more advanced," but really we're just smarter. That's only one way of measuring against our cousins. But they tend to be a LOT stronger. Even the relatively small chimpanzee is significantly stronger than humans. By what do you measure "advancement?" If it's population size or existence in varied environments, then spiders, ants, bacteria and others are significantly more advanced than we are. If you mean "top of the food chain," well, that depends - we aren't always on top. We depend pretty heavily on our technology, or simply avoiding environments where there are plenty of predators that can easily kill us. If you measure how long a species has been around and remained relatively unchanged, we're towards the bottom of that list.
Evolution isn't a ladder, or a chain. It's like a bush. A really, really bushy bush, with new branches forming everywhere that all form their own branches, which form more branches, etc. Not all of the branches keep growing, but all of the branches that keep growing continue to change and adapt to their environments over generations. Small, often imperceptible changes add up over generations to become noticeable differences in different populations that can eventually confer a survival advantage.
Member Rating: 10.0
Ok no satisfying answers yet, Maybe the question wasn't asked correctly ?
What about the responses you've received thus far is unsatisfactory? Be specific. Saying "that doesn;t sound right to me" is not an argument, refutation, or even a solid request for clarification, and hints of an Appeal to Personal Incredulity besides.
Definition species. Something that can reproduce with something else. This is a good description of species.
No, it's rather incomplete. There really is no perfect definition for species - the process of evolution means that black/white, SPecies A/Species B definitions are occasionally rather difficult. There are many shades of gray.
Take for example ring species.
Ring species are a set of neighboring populations that have evolved together because of geographic proximity, and have resulted in the curious ability to interbreed with nearby, closely related species but not species farther away (geographic spearation prevents the sharing of genetic information and thus can eventually result in interbreeding becoming impossible).
For example, given species A, B, C, and D:
A can interbreed with B and D, but not C. B can interbreed with A and C, but not D. C can interbreed with B and D, but not A.
There is not always a literal ring, and it's not always a linear set like in this simplified example. But it shows the weakness of our typical definition of "species."
From the Wiki entry on species:
Definition races. A sub form of species. Like black N white people ( Im not a racist no hate males please)S
Races are frankly irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned. Hoho Habilis, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and Homo Erectus are not different races, but are compeltely distinct species.
I read in Illustrerad vetenskap ( swedish science magazine ) That they have found evidence of a Neander thal mated with a common human. Or well they found a fosil with a neanderthal skull and common human body. Wich means that the neander thals were simply another race of humans, or well i think it is much more likely than counting neander thals as an own species.
"I read this someplace" is not evidence. As Percy said, you've either minusderstood, or your article was factually incorrect. Neanderthals were a separate species from modern humans, not simply a different race. They were morphologically and genetically distinct from humanity. Calling them a "different race" would require redefining a large portion of taxonomy - many populations that we identify today as distinct species would have to be reclassified.
I prefer to leave that to the biologists, not to laypersons who "read something someplace."
Answering with that they didn't survive is only answering how not why.
Answering that they didn't survive is the accurate answer. That you personally find it unconvincing is irrelevant - personal credulity is not an accurate guide for reflecting reality.
The real question is, Why should i believe that humans evolved from more primitive ape like versions, When there are no such creatures today. There are only apes and humans. No knowmn human apes. And the fosil evidence isn't especially satisfying at all, There are no links i have actually found.
Define "link?" We have an extensive chain demonstrating human evolution. There are no real remaining "missing links" of the type typically discussed. The exception is when a Creationist insists that there must be a missing link between links 8 and 9, for example. This presupposes that we should expect to find fossilized remains of every single generation between each ancestor species - an absurdity spawned of ignorance of the process of fossilization, and not required for biology to positively identify the path of human evolution.
Again, the Wiki article on human evolution is extremely helpful.
This is a diagram showing the distribution and ancestry of various hominid species. I like this one particularly because it displays the lack of solid boundaries - at the point of branching, each species is closely related. It also visually displays exactly why each species no longer exists - some of the populations evolved into new species (eliminating the ancestor species through interbreeding), and others simply represented a branch that died out for various reasons. This is supported by genetic evidence (we can determine ancestry in much the same way we do paternity tests - the differences are obviously greater, but there are definitive markers that let us trace which species descended from which ancestor), morphological evidence, geological and radiometric dating, etc.
The branch showing the split between hominid apes and non-hominid apes happens earlier than the chart displays...but basically this is typical of all species' family trees, and works as a microchosm of the entirety of evolution.
And what was once considerd as the missing link now turned out to be bluff. Like the piltdown human or nebraska man. Or like this, if we have not found any living missing links between humans and apes, If we have not found any missing link in the fosil record. Why should i believe that we evolved from apes ?
We have found these links in the fossil record. We have had some cases of outright fraud, or simple inaccurate conclusions. We also have had instances of media hype where scientists never made claims that were reported by overzealous reporters. But all of that says absolutely nothing about the fossil evidence we do have. Clearly you accept the fossil evidence of Neanderthals. The wiki articles I've linked to describe many more non-hoax, verified fossils that represent the "missing links" you're looking for.
I hope i get some more satisfying answers now
Perhaps it would help if you would reply in a point-by-point fashion? RAZD has shown how to apply quote tags to your replies - it helps to keep track of conversations and promotes specifically addressing the points you're replying to.
I'm still somewhat unsure of specifically what you find dissatisfying about current models of human evolution. If you elaborate, it will be far easier to clear things up.
Member Rating: 10.0
What is science?
Science is, in a nutshell, the scientific method - a system of methodologically modelling the natural world through a process of observation, prediction, and testing.
Is it scientific to beleive in abiogenisis or big bang ?
"Belief" is irrelevant. Science concerns itself with models that are supported by observable evidence, not "belief." It is a fact that the Theory of Evolution and Big Bang cosmology have proven to be highly accurate models of their respective fields, making many predictions that have later been confirmed through observational evidence and which have never been contradicted by any other evidence. As with all sceince, they represent our "best fit" model for how the world around us works.
Abiogenesis is a little different, being far less established than evolution or the Big Bang. It's looked upon as the most parsimonious (and therefore most likely) source of life on Earth (and indeed in the Universe as a whole - at some point life did not exist, and now it does, so clearly life had to come from somewhere and abiogenesis is the only explanation that doesn't require completely rewriting everything we think we know about the Universe), but the evidence supporting it is of necessity significantly less strong than evolution or the Big Bang. Nevertheless, it still represents our "best fit" - there is at least some evidence suggestive of abiogenesis, where there is no evidence whatsoever for any "alternative explanations."
Infact that is less scientific then any religion that ever existed. Atleast from a mathematic perspective.
Support this statement immediately or retract. Religion is not based on evidence; science is. There are no mathematics regarding religion at all.
The hypothesis about humans evolving from apes is not welldocumented nor is it science.
Quite to the contrary, human evolution is one of the best documented fields in all of science. You'd know that had you read my links to Wikipedia.
Further, your sayso is insufficient to challenge established scientific theories. In what way do models of human evolution fail to meet your standards of science? Be specific. Right now, you're just saying "nuh uh!" That's how children argue - we have higher standards here.
For exampel, have you ever read a science magazine lately ? When i read about evolution i often get the impression that every time some new fosil is found significant changes are being made in the " tree of life"
Im guessing you are aware of this. So is it really well established or well documented ?
"Scientific magazine?" You mean like "Popular Science?"
Please. Those are not written by scientists, and they do not represent actual scientific literature. Much like television, their goal is not the propagation of fact or accurate adherence to scientific models, but rather to sell more magazines. They oversensationalize. A lot.
That's not to say that we don't still make major discoveries.
An excellent recent example is the Ida fossil - a major find, and one that does indeed carry great significance in the chain of ape evolution (includinh human evolution). However, it's not the "missing link" that the media portrayed it as. Those links were discovered decades before Ida. Documentaries spoke of "verifying Darwinism," when evolution has been verified by literally every bit of biologicalevidence we've discovered in the past 200 years - it all fits the evolutionary model. Evolution has been directly observed in the lab - college students carry out experiments every year that demonstrate the evolution of new traits and species.
But Ida was significant. She's not the "missing link," but she is a link that represents a common ancestor between lemurs and other apes. It's significant, and the fossil is fascinating...and it matches exactly the predictions of evolution.
Instead of blindly believing in evolutionist. How about studying the evidence your'e self. The recreations of human apes in science magazines are intentionally made to look more like apes the older it is.
Are you really suggesting that artist's interpretations of fossil evidence is itself evidence, and part of a brainwashing conspiracy to convince us that we're all monkeys?
Are you daft?
I suggest that you study the actual evidence. I suggest looking to actual scientific journals, where the full findings of the actual scientists are recorded in their own words, rather than junk-science magazines that just wnat to sell more subscriptions and sensationalize every minor discovery into Earth-shattering significance.
Perhaps the media is not the place to gain an education in science. Perhaps instead universities and actual sicentific literature are the place to learn about science.
Perhaps your comprehension and knowledge, as a layperson, is vastly inferiorto the actual sicentists who develop and test these theories, and there just might be a reason that essencially all biologists accept the currently established model of human evolution.
Perhaps you should try presenting evidence that falsifies the current model, or a model of your own that fits the evidence better. That you, a layperson who apparently gains most of his scientific understanding from magazines should be unconvinced of something you clearly don't even understand is hardly surprising or of great consequence.
For exampel, When the nebraska man was found. The scientific magazines flowed with images of a human ape, Based upon nothing more than a tooth, that later turned out to belong to an extinct pig species....
Which turned out to be an example of media hype more than scientific inaccuracy, as I recall. Yet another reason to distrust your magazines.
Neanderthals are another exampel of how you can not trust in the evolutionist recreation of human apes. The first Neander thal fosils were made very ape like. But it turned out the fosil this was based on belonged to a deformed old man.
Another exampel of the evolutionists wishing thoughts were Archapitetus, Said to be the first walking ape, But this was only based upona few fragments from the jaw. Do you think this was enough o recreate a walking human ape ?
Present your source for these claims or retract. Your sayso is insufficient - give us a link, or at least the name and date of whatever magazine you're pulling this from.
Of course not. Obviusly in theese cases plus the piltdown and the new guinnea man, Alot of wishing was involved. The evolutionist tried to form the evidence to make it look like they wanted. This was not scientific.
Fortunately, we've continued to find more fossils. We have more than one Neanderthal fossil, you know.
Do you really think the evolutionist has changed at all ? Should we really believe in what the evolutionist says without studying the evidence for our selves ?
That's the thing about science - actual scientists want you to look at the evidence for yourself. But you need to have at least enough of an education to comprehend what you're looking at. So far, you have failed to actually present any evidence of this massive fraud you're proposing - you haven't presented one iota of evidence falisfying the current model of human evolution, nor have you presented a competing model that you believe is more accurate.
Should we really believe what you say without looking at any evidence?
No the evolutionist are constantly bending the evidence to make it look the way they want it.
Curiously, it has been evolutionists themselves who have falsified every hoax, corrected every overzealous conclusion, and discarded inaccuracies in light of new evidence. If evolutionists are so bent on world domination through ape ancestry, why would they expose their own frauds?
And im afriad saying that the human evolution is well documented is simply falsce. First of all there are very few fosils considering all the species who lived, so its not a very good base at all.
Such a statement clearly displays that you have no idea what you're talking about. Fossilization is rare. We don't expect to find many - but we have found more than enough of tehm to paint a fairly clear picture of teh progression of ape evolution, culminating in the apes existing today (including humans).
You're lying. I've already posted links to significant documentation regarding human evolution, which themselves contain links to additional documentation - and those were simply Wikipedia articles, not full scientific journals or textbooks. When you're been presented with evidence, and then you deny the evidence exists, you are lying. I'd suggest you stop that.
So im afraid it is not unscientific to believe that humans did not evolve. Im not saying the creationist are much better ( Allthough infinetly better from a mathematic view point) But making suchs claim as that im unscientific by not believing in evolution is no better then a priest saying that atheist are evil.
I am afraid that you have some serious misconceptions regarding evolution, mathematics, and science in general.
More importantly, I;m afraid that since you've presented absolutely no evidence in support of your position, and because you have failed to refute even a single part of the current model of human evolution, there's no reason to believe anything that you say. Perhaps if you began supporting your statements with evidence, you would do better.
Member Rating: 10.0
Do i really need any links ? I am trying to use only common knolledge because i hate using links.
Yes, you do need links. One of the requirements of this forum is that you support your arguments with evidence. Further, I dispute your "common knowledge" as utter bullshit. That means you need to present a source.
Abiogenisis is impossibel
Says who? You? Why should I believe you?
Immediately provide evidence that abiogenesis is impossible or concede that this claim is nonsense.
To do that, you need to provide a mechanism that makes abiogenesis impossible. No such mechanism, to my knowledge, has been discovered - which is why we continue to research abiogenesis and possible pathways from prebiotic organic compounds to the building blocks of life.
and is very likely to be the worst myth ever made by humans.
Why? Because you say so? You haven't even shown that it's a myth, let alone that it's particularly egregious. Personally, I find the idea of talking snakes and invisible men in the sky who sacrifice themselves to themselves only to raise themselves from the dead after three days to be a rather egregious myth.
And the form of Darwinism that is allto common today. Evolutionist should simply solve this by saying something created it but they choose to stick to it.
Scientists don't say things they cannot back up with evidence. We don't know that life was "created" - we have no evidence of a creator, and there is nothing definitive about life that suggests an intelligent entity was required. We know that life at one point did not exist, and now life does. We have clues regarding abiogenesis (it appears that the abiotic, nonliving precursors to life exist naturally in the Universe, and so far experiments in getting them to spontaneously combine into compounds required for life have been promising), and so we continue to investigate its plausibility. It's the most likely solution only because it's the only solution with any sort of evidence behind it - that's a far cry from anyone proclaiming it to be factual.
I believe you need to go and study books if you are questioning why i am not linking facts for common knolledge. I recomend this video were richard dawkins speaks himself =)
For learning about what i said
I think you need to do some reading. But around here, you're required to post in your own words what you believe a source is saying, as well as a link or quote from the source itself. Otherwise, there's really no reason to believe you aren't completely making things up.
And really...a rickroll? This is an actual debate site. We have professors, actual scientists around here along with the rest of us who simply consider this a hoby. This isn't a YouTube Comments section. Grow up and post some evidence, or content yourself with being dismissed as an ignorant child.
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024