|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why are there no human apes alive today? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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 ? There are a lot of intermediates (a more accurate term than "missing link") between modern humans and apes. This is one example of Homo ergaster. It is a fine intermediate between ape-like critters and modern humans. Now, what you believe is your choice, but you can't deny that there are intermediates. In fact, there are a lot of them, but lets concentrate on just this one first. I have presented you with evidence, now you need to show me why this specimen is not an intermediate or concede your point. I think your problem is that you have an a priori belief and can't accept any evidence that is in any contrary to that belief. And as Heinlein wrote, "Belief gets in the way of learning." Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Are you saying im agaisnt science just because im against evolution ?
Yes. If you reject the scientific method in one subfield of science, you reject it everywhere. You can't just pick and choose the results you want to see. In fact, creationists are anti-science in spite of their protests to the contrary. They can accept the scientific method when it provides them with CDs and automobiles, but reject it when it documents human descent. They are putting superstition and myth (or divine revelation if you prefer that term) over the scientific method as a way of gaining knowledge. That's certainly not pro-science, now is it? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The hypothesis about humans evolving from apes is not welldocumented nor is it science.
False. The descent of modern man from ape-like critters was well-documented by the fossil record, and when DNA analyses were introduced that entirely separate line of evidence confirmed what the fossils showed. Your source is lying to you on this point.
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" So? Why should there not be changes when new evidence is found? Would you have scientists be like creationists, who already know it all and won't make a change no matter what the evidence? That wouldn't be science.
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. I have handled and studied most of the major fossils in human evolution (as casts). I spent quite a bit of time in grad school studying evolution and closely related fields such as human osteology, human races, primatology, anatomy, etc. I don't need no steenkin' science magazines--I've studied the original casts and read many of the most important journal articles. Others here have considerable experience in the related fields as well. And you? All we're getting from you are the standard creationist misrepresentations based on wishful thinking and denial of the evidence because of a priori religious beliefs. Not much credibility there, eh? And its wrong besides. (See tagline) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I looked at your long post and was going to reply in detail to many of the points, but its not worth it.
You simply don't know enough about science or about fossil man for my reply to be of any value to you. And, you appear to have a set of a priori beliefs. It doesn't look like the evidence will make any difference to you and your beliefs so I'm not even going to bother. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Do you ever get the idea that the more you say about your position, the more you find out it is based on falsehoods, misinformation, and lies?
Creationists have to lie, distort, and misrepresent the scientific evidence for evolution because it contradicts their religious beliefs. The only other alternative would be to admit that the evidence supporting evolution (and an old earth) is overwhelming, and they are not able to do that. So they have to ignore, misrepresent, distort, and outright lie about that evidence. They even devised creation "science" and intelligent design in a dishonest attempt to lend some scientific legitimacy to the falsehoods and misrepresentations they have come up with. All of this might make them feel better, but it is the exact opposite of science. (Note that I am referring to Creationists -- capital C. There are other creationists -- lower case c -- including most Catholics, who accept evolution and an old earth.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Please, Doubletime, give us a hint that you're not just going away.
Are you going to consider the evidence, or ignore it? Does this evidence make any dent in your a priori conceptions? Or are we just wasting our time responding to what, if it is impervious to evidence, is nothing more than witnessing? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Traste, you have shown that you know little about evolution, and have accepted the poison dished out by the anti-science and anti-evolution creationists. Unfortunately, they have to lie because the scientific evidence contradicts virtually all of their religious beliefs. You have fallen for their lies.
In answer to your statement/question about "human apes:" When organisms evolve, they do so as populations. Unfortunately this answer won't mean anything to you because you have accepted a religious belief that provides a different answer. Because of that you won't bother to learn anything about evolution--its all wrong so why bother, eh? (See tagline.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
What made the better adapted? the obvious answer is because they are more complex. So, it follows that the more complex the more itis better adapted. So bacause apemen is more complex, the question is: Why there are no apemen alive today? Complexity or over-specialization can be a detriment in some cases. Some species died out because their complexity or specialization was the wrong one when the environment changed in a direction that did not favor that specialization. An example of such specialization is the koala, which eats only the leaves of one tree. If some disease eliminated or severely restricted that tree they'd be up the extinction creek with no means of propulsion. As for "apemen" (by which I assume you mean extinct hominids as "apemen" is not exactly a well defined term), perhaps they died out in part because of competition from the species which eventually led to modern humans. Humans are generalists, and perhaps some of those "apemen" were more complex in the wrong direction when the conditions changed (competition from other species is a part of that change). Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Bones. Human bones are much lighter than comparable primate bones. For that matter, our bones are much lighter than the bones of every prehuman ancestor through Neanderthal. The ancestor bones look like primate bones; modern human bones do not.
When I took human osteology in graduate school we learned to identify all the bones in the human anatomy, down to small fragments. At the end of the semester the professor brought out a collection of various ape and monkey bones. To our surprise we were able to identify them also! The shapes were largely the same, although there were size and shape differences. But the size (and weight) differences were meaningless. It was the shapes that told the story. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Creationist modelling and assumptions are no worse. Sure they are. They are based on myth and superstition and are contradicted by reality (empirical evidence). That's not only worse but just plain silly besides. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The reason there are no mid species here today is because there never were any in the first place. Nonsense. But creationists won't admit that there are because of their a priori beliefs. They are literally blinding themselves to reality because they believe ancient tribal myth and legend instead of empirical evidence. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In case any posters are symbol-minded, perhaps this will be of some help.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The braincase and brow ridge of Homo erectus and Turkana boy are an extremely good match. A large part of the central portion of the Turkana boy brow ridge has broken off and is missing, but if you click on the image to enlarge it you can clearly see how similar it is to the Homo erectus skull, and how different they both are from the human skull Actually the match may be even better than it appears. Turkana boy is estimated to be less than 10 years of age. Even allowing for differing rates of maturity in the distant past it is extremely likely that the full adult features had not yet developed. These are just the features that are exaggerated in Homo erectus in relation to H. sapiens. I think that Mazzy is being fooled by the more gracile features of a sub-adult. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You are correct. I was responding to the ideas presented by Mazzy above:
Mazzy writes: Indeed G is meant to be homo erectus. The skull presented in your picture is an ape. However if they would have pictured Turkana Boy he is fully human. Turkana boy is classified as eragaster sometimes. From A-G are simply varieties of apes. ... The Eregaster (H) shown in your picture is an ape and so is (I). They did not use floresiensis, thankfully as she is also just an ape, I reckon. It is interesting that Mazzy sees Turkana boy as human and ergaster, while other ergasters and some of their descendants (erectus) are seen as apes. And floresiensis also! I think that Mazzy is being fooled by the sub-adult development of Turkana boy. Without any knowledge of the anatomy and the skulls there is nothing to base one's opinions on but overall appearances and a priori beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Remember also that we're not just talking about morphological differences within a species over space, but over time.
That is correct. An extremely early Erectus should be different than an Erectus from 500,000 years later.
My evolution/fossil man professor in graduate school was of the multiregional school, and saw parallel changes from early to late erectus in each of four areas of the world. In each area he saw an almost identical increase in brain size (although the starting and ending sizes were of course different for the four areas). To make this work he had to classify Neanderthal as late European erectus. The more recent classifications and DNA studies don't support this view of Neanderthal, but there is still some evidence supporting the multiregional theory in other areas.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024