Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,849 Year: 4,106/9,624 Month: 977/974 Week: 304/286 Day: 25/40 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 21 of 1075 (512619)
06-19-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by caffeine
06-18-2009 11:32 AM


Careful, dude! There's a round house coming your way soon!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by caffeine, posted 06-18-2009 11:32 AM caffeine has not replied

Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 22 of 1075 (512620)
06-19-2009 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Doubletime
06-19-2009 9:56 AM


Because our brain capacity is far superior to any other creature.
Our reasoning capacity is greater.
I think you will find that many species have areas of their brain devoted to sensory information far more well developed than ours and consequently superior.
Did you know the olfactory sensitivity of canines (and the associated olfactory cortex) is such that they can detect smells through an area of hard vacuum? Some dogs can actually smell cheese on the moon.
Edited by Larni, : Could not resist it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Doubletime, posted 06-19-2009 9:56 AM Doubletime has not replied

Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 195 of 1075 (620885)
06-21-2011 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Mazzy
06-21-2011 2:06 PM


You're not a halfling Paladin, are you?

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

Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


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


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

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

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

Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 222 of 1075 (621053)
06-23-2011 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Portillo
06-22-2011 6:49 PM


Re: More evolved?
There is plenty of evolution in human affairs. But that is not biological evolution, is it.
If I may, what you appear to be doing is suggesting that the more different an organism is from pond scum the more evolved it is. And that the more evolved it is, the better it is.
The thing to remember is that evolution is not about getting better in an absolute sense (like how my sister used to say she was better than me). Evolution is about how well a population of organism can survive long enough to breed in it's environment.
When you say 'humans are more evolved than pond scum' it is like saying my sister is more evolved than I because she is better. What measure of better are you using?
If better means putting men on the moon then you have a point: but better at putting men on the moon is not part of evolution: only being able to survive long eoungh to pass on copies of your genes is important and ponds scum does that really, really well.
Does that make sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Portillo, posted 06-22-2011 6:49 PM Portillo has not replied

Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 547 of 1075 (622342)
07-02-2011 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 534 by LucyTheApe
07-02-2011 11:40 AM


Re: Apes have ventured into space and animals that have built automatons.
Crows have been shown to display self awareness and tool use. Google 'crow intelligence' and you will see how smart and self aware they are.
They can recognise who they are in mirror test and display theory of mind.
Edited by Larni, : Editing content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-02-2011 11:40 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 833 of 1075 (624611)
07-19-2011 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 832 by IamJoseph
07-19-2011 4:06 AM


Evolution claims to be an 'on-going' process. An on-going process is not impacted by the time factor. If an ape evolved to a human 1 B years ago, this process does not cease: it occured one second after a Billion years, continuously, including last friday. The math destroys evolution.
This makes no sense and shows a convincing lack of understanding of ToE.
'An ape' would not evolve into a human. The accurate statement is that over the course of millions of years a population of non-human primates evolved over successive generation into humans because of geographic isolation and changed selection pressures.
You are confusing one organism 'an ape' morphing in it's own life time into a modern human, with a population over millions of years.
You do know that is not evolution, don't you?
Edited by Larni, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 832 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 4:06 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 835 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 4:25 AM Larni has replied

Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 837 of 1075 (624618)
07-19-2011 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 835 by IamJoseph
07-19-2011 4:25 AM


Can you clarify that you do not believe that 'an ape' morphed into a modern human over one generation?
I have no idea what seed output is: you will need to elaborate on that point or point me in the direction of it's meaning.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 835 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 4:25 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 840 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 4:45 AM Larni has replied

Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 853 of 1075 (624649)
07-19-2011 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 840 by IamJoseph
07-19-2011 4:45 AM


I ask instead you prove your ape offspring
You are asking me to 'prove' my offspring?
I don't have any offspring: even if I did how would proving my offspring (I suppose you mean proving it exist) be of any relevance to the discussion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 840 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 4:45 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 854 by IamJoseph, posted 07-19-2011 9:11 AM Larni has not replied
 Message 855 by Admin, posted 07-19-2011 9:19 AM Larni has replied

Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 860 of 1075 (624685)
07-19-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 855 by Admin
07-19-2011 9:19 AM


I don't think it was a personal question - he was using the plural, not personal, "your".
On reading it back it would make sense if s/he meant 'you're' rather than 'your'.
But I'm still confused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 855 by Admin, posted 07-19-2011 9:19 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 861 by Admin, posted 07-19-2011 12:38 PM Larni has not replied

Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 930 of 1075 (625290)
07-22-2011 4:16 AM


Why are there no human apes (I'm assuming she means our cousins such as neanderthal et al) alive today?
Because they are all dead.

Replies to this message:
 Message 940 by Mazzy, posted 07-23-2011 3:29 PM Larni has replied

Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 942 of 1075 (625523)
07-23-2011 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 940 by Mazzy
07-23-2011 3:29 PM


They meet your morphological and phenotypic definitions of the same species they are not classified as Homo Sapiens by the majority of your researchers.
I think you will find the Neanderthals had different shoulder joints so they could not make use of missile weapons such as spears.
So what you say above is clearly false.
Anyway, closing statements only. I gave mine.
Sleep tight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by Mazzy, posted 07-23-2011 3:29 PM Mazzy has not replied

Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 977 of 1075 (626095)
07-27-2011 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 976 by Mazzy
07-27-2011 3:21 AM


Re: Moderator Advisory
Article writes:
An alternative explanation may be that the primate phylogeny is grossly incorrect, as has been proposed by a minority of anthropologists [29]. This seems unlikely in light of the extensive molecular evolutionary data that have been collected over the last few years [5,25] that clearly place orangutan as the outgroup species to the human—chimpanzee—gorilla clade and Old World monkeys as an outgroup to the human/ape lineage.
Article writes:
Several speculative scenarios may be envisioned to explain the absence of retrovirus in both the orangutan and human lineages. It is possible that the African apes evolved a susceptibility, or humans and Asian apes developed resistance to infection, although in either scenario convergent evolution would have had to have occurred with respect to the viral infections. Studies of the retroviral infection of the Lake Casitas mouse population reveal that such susceptibility/resistance genes may emerge very quickly among closely related strains of mice [34]. Another scenario may be that the lineage that ultimately gave rise to humans did not occupy the same habitat as the ancestral chimpanzee and gorilla lineages. An excursion by early hominids to Eurasia during the time that PTERV1 infected African great apes and then a return to Africa would explain this phylogenetic inconsistency. It is also possible that this effect may have been created by dramatic differences in ancestral population structure. If, for example, the ancestral populations of humans and orangutans were substantially larger than those of the African great apes, the fixation of new insertions (1/2N) would occur much more rapidly within small inbred populations even if similar infection rates existed. A similar model has recently been proposed, albeit in the opposite direction, to explain an increase of apparent Alu Ya5 and Yb8 retroposition activity in the human lineage but not in chimpanzees and gorillas [35]. In this regard, it is interesting that documented differences in the patterns of endogenous retrovirus between domesticated and feral species have been attributed to inbreeding [19,20]. There is, however, no evidence to date that the ancestral populations of chimpanzees were smaller than that of humans. Recent studies suggest that ancestral chimpanzee populations, in fact, may have been two to four times larger [36,37] than the effective human population size (greater than 10,000). A dramatic population crash in ancestral gorilla and chimpanzee populations would be required to explain the effect we have observed. Further population genetic studies of contemporary great apes or paleoanthropological work may help to eliminate these and other possible scenarios.
Did you forget to read the discussion?
Edited by Larni, : Second paragraph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 976 by Mazzy, posted 07-27-2011 3:21 AM Mazzy 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